Climate Change: Is Nuclear Power the Solution?

Solidarity forum:

Climate Change:
Is Nuclear Power the Solution?

2pm, Saturday 17th April,
Justice Products (on the deck),
192 Boundary Street, West End

Nuclear power is being touted as a “clean” alternative to fossil fuels. Prominent climate scientists such as Tim Flannery and James Hansen see it as part of the solution while Barack Obama says it is necessary to “prevent the worst consequences of climate change”.

While the Rudd government has ruled out nuclear power in Australia, it does so on economic not environmental grounds and is deeply implicated in the global nuclear industry via its support for uranium mining and the construction of nuclear waste dumps. There remains a strong pro nuclear lobby in Australia with Labor’s Energy and Resources Minister, Martin Ferguson, saying it should part of the “debate”.

Is nuclear power, including 4th generation breeder reactors, a “clean” alternative to fossils fuels? This meeting takes a critical look and will be followed by discussion on fighting against climate change. All welcome.

For more information phone Mark on 3891 5385

One thought on “Climate Change: Is Nuclear Power the Solution?

  1. “Nuclear power is being touted as a “clean” alternative to fossil fuels”

    That’s been the big sell for nuclear for at least 40 years that I can remember. Ok lets see, it’s clean that’s a good thing. Now lets look at the bad things; it’s fuel will kill you if you handle it, the fuel remains deadly for 50,ooo years, the spent fuel must be burried in abandoned mines, spent fuel is a terrorist target, it costs about $10 billion to build a nuclear facility, it costs about $40 billion to maintain it for it’s lifetime, there has never been a nuclear plant ever built which has survived without huge subsidies (they are all welfare cases) and each facility is a terrorist target, and oh yes let’s not forget Three Mile Island and Chernoble. Have I covered it all? i think I’ve left out a few things but I think you get the picture. Nuclear sucks.

    If we spent $10 billion finding a way to clean the smoke from smokstacks we would save trillions in nuclear spending and all of the above issues simply go away. So will we find a solution to dirty coal? nope we’ll go for nuclear anyway. why? Because the public is lazy and scientists are too stupid to solve simple smoke. If you can solve smoke, you’ll become a billionaire but no one is interested.

What do you think about this article?