Nuclear power and the foundational lie


The demonisation of CO2 is the foundational lie that underpins climate alarmism and the suicidal net zero ponzi scheme.

Lets hear no more talk about nuclear power as clean energy.

Most protagonists of nuclear power like to say it is clean, meaning no CO2 is released, as though this is a massive benefit. Certainly it is a selling point to people who think that carbon dioxide, the foundation of life on earth, is the evil driver of lethal global warming.

There has to be a way to use that characteristic of nuclear power to hasten the legalization without at the same time promoting the foundational lie.

It should be legalised as soon as possible but we can’t expect to have a significant amount of nuclear power in the grid inside 2 decades.

In the meantime we will have to burn coal or the lights will go out and everything else that depends on a continuous supply of electricity. That is simply a matter of fact based on the ABC of intermittent energy production.

  1. The grid must have a continuous input of power.
  2. The continuity of wind and solar input is interrupted by nights with little wind.
  3. There is no feasible or affordable storage available to fill in the gaps.

That means that the so-called transition to wind and solar power is not going to happen although eventually nuclear power may replace coal and in that event we will have power without CO2 emissions. Speaking on behalf of the green plants that will be disappointing.

If you really want to use the “no emissions” line to make people more receptive to nuclear power, then just say as a matter of fact that there are no emissions but don’t say “clean” or imply that there is anything desirable about reducing emissions.

In the same breath that you say we need nuclear power, go on to say that we will have to burn coal for some decades to keep the lights on. You don’t have to say that is a good thing, it is just a matter of fact. TINA  There is No Alternative.

It is time for Coalition politicians to tell the simple truth and explain the facts of the matter to the public. They showed some heart in The Racist Voice debate and converted a lost cause into a win for NO. Maybe they can do it again.


Subscribe
Notify of
guest

9 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Johnny Rotten
Johnny Rotten
April 26, 2024 5:29 pm

There are 20 Countries in the G20 and Australia is in it. Only one of those Countries does not use Nuclear Power to generate Electrickery, I mean Electricity.

And that one Country is ‘Horse Trailer’, formerly known as Australia. The ‘Cleva Country’.

Belgium has 7 Nuclear Power Stations.

Egypt is building one with Russian help.

Uganda is building one FFS.

Come on down Blackout Bonehead Bowen and explain…………………

Roger
Roger
April 26, 2024 6:39 pm

An even bigger lie is that man can control the climate.

KevinM
KevinM
April 26, 2024 11:44 pm

I am sorry but your premise is wrong, you will never beat ideology with facts.
Lying by omission is as bad as lying, probably worse.

I have no problem with nuclear, but we don’t need it, plenty of very good clean burning coal that will last for centuries.
The latest coal burning power stations are works of art and efficiency.

Tom
Tom
April 27, 2024 5:27 am

Spot on, Rafe.

However, after 30 years of repetition by an incurious media and in the classroom, the foundational lie is now embedded in Australian public policy.

The reason is simple: in the same period, most of Australia has abandoned Christianity as a guiding philosophy and needed a false god to replace it.

Climate change is an anti-scientific de facto deity whose zombie followers think they have the godlike power to control the earth’s weather.

A generation of Western children have been indoctrinated with anti-science. The idea that an atmospheric trace gas controls the climate is comical in its ignorance.

But try telling that to a believer: figuratively, you will risk being burned at the stake as a heretic.

Research that debunks the foundational lie is not funded as the climate change zealots control the purse strings.

Scientists know the truth, but have to keep repeating the lie to get research money.

The global industry that has sprung up around the climate change lie is now bigger than the Australian economy, consuming more than $US2 trillion in GDP per year.

Undoing the lie looks like it will take decades, if not centuries.

The internet age has put all the world’s human knowledge at our fingertips, but so far has only entrenched our capacity for self-delusion.

mem
mem
April 27, 2024 6:52 am

At 6am here in Victoria only 1 percent of the state’s power was being generated by wind turbines. There was no solar power at all (being before sunrise and given cloud coverage not much expected until later in the day). Very little wind about as well. Brown coal was generating 92% of the state’s energy. Even then Vic needed to import a substantial amount of electricity via NSW and Qld that was being generated by black coal. Take coal out of the equation and Victoria is in big trouble. Let alone NSW and Qld. SA was primarily dependent on gas. Our governments, both state and federal, are punting on wind and solar being available somewhere when needed. It’s one big expensive gamble. And all for what?

m0nty
April 29, 2024 9:29 pm

Oh Rafe, sweet summer child.

The LNP understands everything you said. They do not care one iota about nukes. Their professed interest in nuclear is a figment, entirely a product of their capture by coal industry donors. Credit to you for seeing this truth, even though you don’t follow the money to discover the deeper meaning of Dutton’s actions.

You are a true believer. The Libs are cynically using obsessive anoraks like you to hide from accountability over their embarrassing electoral cratering.

  1. Do you know what’s actually the most outrageous part of the whole Gaza pier operation? In a week they’d only delivered…

  2. Any fellow firearms owners in WA … bend down and kiss your arse goodbye. Our police minister on the new…

9
0
Oh, you think that, do you? Care to put it on record?x
()
x