tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post111781831504014802..comments2024-03-07T02:00:01.582-05:00Comments on NEI Nuclear Notes: Quantifying the Environmental Benefits of Nuclear EnergyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-1118069758651096062005-06-06T10:55:00.000-04:002005-06-06T10:55:00.000-04:00In Australia, one of the major political parties t...In Australia, one of the major political parties the Australian Labor Party (ALP) is inextricably linked to the union movement, so much so that to join the ALP one has to be a member of an affiliated union. A senior position in a union is frequently a stepping stone to a seat in Parliament and ministerial position in an ALP government. Union leaders are instrumental in setting ALP policy, and have been solidly anti-nuclear for three decades, irrespective of the positions of their international affiliations. I believe that this is to try to capture the suburban "green" vote. I am particularly surprised at the CFMEU's position because it, theoretically, should also represent the interests of uranium miners, construction workers who would build nuclear power stations, and energy workers who would work in nuclear power stations. I believe that the union's anti-nuclear stance is more about supporting current ALP policy, and the union leadership's parliamentary aspirations, than about promoting the interests of its members. <BR/><BR/>The Australian coal industry itself doesn't seem to have voiced a position on nuclear power, this could be because BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto are the biggest players and both have significant uranium mining intersests, so they will win no matter what. They probably also realize that the market for coal isn't going to disappear any time soon, even if Australia goes nuclear.Matthew66https://www.blogger.com/profile/14300778464353560180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-1118061546411941232005-06-06T08:39:00.000-04:002005-06-06T08:39:00.000-04:00We should make one thing clear: though the union ...We should make one thing clear: though the union Matthew sites in his post may be against nuclear energy is Australia, the industry enjoys very good relations with a number of unions here in the U.S. Just look at our links on the right margin and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.Eric McErlainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16845846046464525505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-1118016862902185822005-06-05T20:14:00.000-04:002005-06-05T20:14:00.000-04:00Matthew:Though unions are vocal anti-nuclear oppos...Matthew:<BR/><BR/>Though unions are vocal anti-nuclear opposition, they are not the people that make the real money from the market conditions that result when nuclear power is handicapped.<BR/><BR/>The real money is made by the capitalists that own the coal, oil and gas extraction rights. <BR/><BR/>When nuclear is allowed to prosper, it has a dramatic effect on the supply-demand balance in fossil fuels. That market tends to be quite responsive to very small changes in the balance. When supply is bigger than demand by even a percent or two, inventories build rapidly and prices fall rather dramatically.<BR/><BR/>People that own oil wells, coal mines, and gas fields feel the pinch quickly. They also reap BILLIONS when the supply is just a tad short of the demand and prices increase by a factor of two or three over the span of a year or so - as has happened recently.<BR/><BR/>Look at the annual reports for major fossil fuel suppliers - don't pay too much attention to the union position. Union members may get to keep their reasonably well paying but rather difficult jobs a bit longer, but they do not get rich beyond human imagination like those that own Aramaco, Exxon, Total-Fina, Petro China and dozens of others.<BR/><BR/>RodRod Adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03652375336090790205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-1117848332895459902005-06-03T21:25:00.000-04:002005-06-03T21:25:00.000-04:00Rod,With the greatest respect, I am not that naive...Rod,<BR/><BR/>With the greatest respect, I am not that naive. When Bob Carr (NSW Premier, Australia) recommended a revived debate on the environmental impact of nuclear generated electricity, the first (and least surprising) opponent was the Construction Forrestry Mining and Energy Union (www.cfmeu.asn.au), whose state secretary, Andrew Ferguson, noted that "We believe the community resolved this issue decades ago. A lot of people are concerned about the environment, and nuclear energy is not consistent with their concerns." As if environtmental science has not made any progress in "decades". Methinks Mr. Ferguson is more interested in the employment prospects of his coal miner members. He needn't worry, <BR/>Australia will export every kilogram of coal that it doesn't burn for electricity - at least in the medium term - by which time Mr. Ferguson will have a nice safe seat in either the state or federal parliament.<BR/><BR/>Mr. Ferguson seems to neglect his construction members, who will greatly benefit from construction of NPPs, and indeed his colleagues in the ship building unions, who will, no doubt, be employed by Westinghouse, GE, AREVA, Hitachi, Mitsubishi or whoever, to build the components of a generation of NSW nuclear power stations.Matthew66https://www.blogger.com/profile/14300778464353560180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-1117844220826406062005-06-03T20:17:00.000-04:002005-06-03T20:17:00.000-04:00Matthew:I like your vision. However, imagine the e...Matthew:<BR/>I like your vision. However, imagine the effect that such a system would have on the coal and natural gas industry.<BR/>Don't get me wrong - I think it would be great if we did not burn any fossil fuels to generate electricity. My point is that nukes often blame "environmentalists" for their difficulties in the market, when a more logical explanation is that the coal, oil and gas interests worked diligently to scare people away from a formidable competitor.<BR/>Sure, there are vocal people that claim to speak for "environmentalism" that have fought nuclear power for years, but when it comes to battles over enormous sums of money, nukes should recognize that people do not always reveal their true motives or their true sources of support. In other words, they LIE.Rod Adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03652375336090790205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-1117838584687459162005-06-03T18:43:00.000-04:002005-06-03T18:43:00.000-04:00Matthew,You are exactly right. And for additional...Matthew,<BR/><BR/>You are exactly right. And for additional information on hybrid uses of nuclear power, go to our Nuclear-Hydrogen-Desalination webpage: www.aaenvironment.com/nuhydro.htmNorris McDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14564345494443383507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-1117825278776709972005-06-03T15:01:00.000-04:002005-06-03T15:01:00.000-04:00If the USA generated all it's electricity from nuc...If the USA generated all it's electricity from nuclear reactors, during the off-peak periods the plants could desalinate water, or produce hydrogen. Nuclear desalination could provide the water much of the west needs, and may even enable the dismantling of dams, which are an environmental issue of their own. Imagine that, lots of electricity, clean air, free flowing rivers, and a small amount of easily contained waste.Matthew66https://www.blogger.com/profile/14300778464353560180noreply@blogger.com