<
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/21/nuclear-energy-australia-smokescreen-climate-denialism-coalition>
"The vague, ideological push for nuclear energy backed by the Coalition and
News Corp and given legitimacy this week on the ABC’s
Q+A should be treated
as what it is: the latest step in a decades-long campaign of delay and denial
on the climate crisis.
Nuclear energy likely has a role to play in the global shift to zero-emissions
energy in places that already use it or that have few other options. As with
other technology, its role may grow or recede over time as the world moves.
This stuff is going to change.
But no case has been made to support claims it has a place in the rapid
transition under way in Australia. The reason for this is pretty
straightforward: the technology that is being spruiked – small modular reactors
(SMRs) – doesn’t exist. Not meaningfully.
That alone tells you that, with few exceptions, the current wave of nuclear
boosterism is at its heart an anti-renewable energy campaign.
It is based on an arrogant and – despite the reams of column inches given over
to it – unsubstantiated rejection of the detailed evidence from the Australian
Energy Market Operator (and plenty of others) that solar, wind, hydro,
batteries and other “firming” support can provide a reliable, affordable,
low-emissions electricity supply.
Coincidentally or otherwise, many prominent members of the pro-nuclear and
anti-renewable energy campaign dismiss climate science. Some do it directly.
Others do it indirectly by arguing there is no urgency to act.
The primary sources of this climate rejection are the federal Coalition, the
Australian newspaper and the misinformation sewer of
Sky News After Dark.
The
Australian is happy to run unquestioning news stories claiming
multibillion-dollar “black holes” in renewable energy plans based on flawed
analyses by former mining executives, but then devote pages to tut-tutting over
an estimate by Chris Bowen’s energy department that says nuclear energy would
be – shock horror – really expensive.
This is, of course, a newspaper that gives more space to contrarian campaigns
by individual scientists who claim that the Great Barrier Reef is not under
threat and the Bureau of Meteorology’s temperature records cannot be trusted
than it does to the overwhelming weight of thousands of peer-reviewed science
papers. Considered and balanced scepticism is healthy. The
Australian’s
coverage of these issues has the rigour of an old bloke shouting in the corner
of a pub as last drinks are served."
Cheers,
*** Xanni ***
--
mailto:xanni@xanadu.net Andrew Pam
http://xanadu.com.au/ Chief Scientist, Xanadu
https://glasswings.com.au/ Partner, Glass Wings
https://sericyb.com.au/ Manager, Serious Cybernetics
