Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumProof emerges of renewable energy's link to Shell Petroleum
For years we've had the nuclear acolytes telling us that support for renewable energy is really just a diversion pushed by fossil fuel companies in order to kill off their true competition - nuclear power.
Sample:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112754870#post37
It is a self-evident fact that the traditional energy establishment is best served by maintaining the status quo and that the inclusion of nuclear as part of that mix serves to preserve the system as it presently exists. Small nuclear reactors are particularly favored by those who see development of tar sands as a priority because of the extremely high energy costs associated with their extraction.
Renewable energy requires a complete and total rethinking of how we get, deliver and use energy; with emphasis on the words 'complete and total'. The people involved in the development of renewable energy know that the shift to this new system is recognized as an existential threat to the entrenched energy interests.
So you be the judge, is the ExShell boss just playing a Shell game, or is his endorsement of nuclear and his call for defunding support for renewables genuine?
Pia Akerman The Australian
OCT 07, 2013 12:00AM
AUSTRALIAN policymakers need to keep nuclear power on the table to meet future energy needs, according to a former Shell Oil president who has called for an end to "kneejerk policy reactions" on energy issues.
John Hofmeister, who led the American arm of the global petrochemical giant Shell between 2005 and 2008, also urged the Abbott government to reconsider stripping public funding from clean energy development.
Mr Hofmeister said new processes of producing nuclear energy from thorium instead of uranium meant nuclear power should not be ruled out.
"The days of nuclear power based upon uranium-based fission are coming to a close because the fear of nuclear proliferation, the reality of nuclear waste and the difficulty of managing it have proven too difficult over time," he told The Australian.
"But that doesn't prevent us from going in a new nuclear direction...
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/ex-shell-boss-issues-nuclear-call/story-e6frg6xf-1226733858032
Demeter
(85,373 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)In addition, he knows that nuclear reactors tie up huge sums of money and take many years to go online, and figures that without renewables, the field would be left to oil and gas.
To me, espousing new nuclear when Fukushima is still poisoning the earth is reprehensible.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)if you look around, you'll see that much of the known fissionable radioactive reserves are already owned by the coal & oil industries. They're the ones who scoured the world with geologists, after all, and they bought up a whole lot of uranium claims in the 50's & 60's during the fissionable prospecting boomlet.
djean111
(14,255 posts)So, yeah, sort of like stock - they own the stuff.
Just think how much poison is/ill be spewed in the name of "recovering investment" and profit.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)the fallback plan for the fossil fuel industry, which is one reason they have permitted little funding for sustained fusion research. Deuterium & tritium are refined from ordinary seawater, and you can't put claim stakes around the ocean (so far). I've known that for 40 years at least.