Skip to comments.Dumping our fear (Andrew Bolt)
Posted on 09/30/2005 3:41:24 PM PDT by naturalman1975
WE need to dig this hi-tech dump of Bob Hawke's, and not just to bury nuclear waste.
We need it also to bury the green unreason which has held up great ideas like this for far too long.
Hear it already, the hyperventilating over this suggestion from the former Labor prime minister for a nuclear waste dump that would be worth billions.
But enough, please. Green myths have too often won out over science and it's already cost us a fortune.
Where do we even start to count these losses? With, say, genetically modified food crops?
Why not? Scientists agree GM crops such as canola are safe and useful. Our Gene Technology Regulator approved GM canola for use.
Yet, spooked by nothing more than green believers and their technophobic dupes in the media, our state governments have banned them.
Result? We're losing so many sales to GM-hip countries such as Canada that the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics this month warned these bans may cost us $3 billion over 10 years.
That's gold-plated idiocy.
Or take this green superstition that we can stop global warming with wind farms. So we build huge windmills in our loveliest spots to grind out power at twice the price, but with no effect on the weather that any instrument can detect.
Keep counting. Figure how much we'll pay for our failure to build the dams we need, thanks to politicians too scared to "steal" water from rivers to give to nasty humans.
Or figure, as uranium prices soar, what we've lost in sales by stopping more than three uranium mines from opening, to placate earth worshippers who think nuclear power is a crime against Nature.
Keep counting. Add the millions we'll spend on taking scarce water from farmers to send it instead down the Murray to "save" the river from "dying" -- when the water in fact is as sweet now as it was 60 years ago.
So deep does this new unreason run that Victoria University even offers a Bachelor of Science degree for quack non-science cures such as homeopathy (see below). Are we crazy?
Why have scientists taken this assault on their traditions so meekly? Why hasn't the Australian Academy of Science fought this rising superstition? Where has anyone been who claims to value reason?
Well, it's time to fight back. Let this battle over the nuclear waste site be the Waterloo of the greens.
The plan pushed this week by Hawke is not new, of course. Pangea, an international company, proposed the very same thing in 1999, figuring a waste facility would earn an astonishing $2 billion a year.
Judged on the science alone, it made sense -- and still does. Around the globe, 440 nuclear reactors pump out almost a fifth of the world's electricity -- but also around 12,000 tonnes a year of nuclear waste.
But no country has yet built a permanent high-level waste facility, and for 40 years spent nuclear fuel has been left at temporary sites.
THAT'S unsafe. That's also a hell of a business opportunity, with $1 million a tonne on offer to bury this stuff. As Pangea said, no one is better placed than we are to take advantage.
The reason is that to store this waste safely you need a big stretch of flat land with dense rock that's been geologically stable for hundreds of millions of years. That land must also get little rain, have little ground water to disturb the waste and have nothing around that's likely to be needed for a long time.
Four places fit the bill -- China's Terim Basin, southern Argentina, southern Africa and desert Australia.
But wait. Do you trust China to handle nuclear waste well? South Africa?
That leaves us -- the hope of the world. The country with the place, talent and trustworthiness to handle such a vital and delicate job.
Naturally, we'd need to build a dedicated port and rail line and get up to 70 special ships. Then we'd have to dig a repository 500m under the deserts of Western Australia or Northern Territory big enough to take a fifth of the world's wastes over the next 40 years. By then we'd have $120 billion.
On the facts alone, who could resist the challenge? Why resist the 2000 jobs and the cash? Who doubts that we're smart enough to do all this safely and well?
Yet see the politicians run. When Pangea first revealed its plan, the Howard Government's then industry minister, Senator Nick Minchin, refused to even meet its representatives, so scared was he of even touching a live, ticking member of the nuclear industry.
"I don't care how much money, resources, time and effort that Pangea waste in their pursuit of this proposal, they will not change the Government's mind," he declared. Don't bother a scared man with the facts.
Pangea has since disbanded, discouraged. But have the times changed? Now even former Greenpeace head Paul Gilding admits nuclear power might help stop the global warming he thinks threatens us. So does former NSW Labor premier Bob Carr, and federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson agrees we should debate nuclear power "notwithstanding the hysteria".
But already the drums of the savages are rumbling. "A crazy idea," protests the Total Environment Centre. "Selling our souls," says Greenpeace, confirming this is about religion, not science. And a prize to the reader who can tell me what that bloke in Brisbane was yelling at me in our "debate" yesterday on Channel 9's Today show.
ENOUGH. It's time for scientists to defend good science. Time to listen to experts with answers, not mystics with vibes. Time to defend the reason that has made us rich. Time to bury the superstitions that will make us poor.
You see, there aren't that many Australians and our country is not so very rich in nature's gifts, whatever our anthem says. The edge we have on the rest of the world is our brains. If we stop thinking rationally, we won't even have that.
The green mystics must be defied and reason must again rule. This dump is our test. Let's start digging.
US Nuclear Power Debate
... The Bush administration also wants to explore new technology to recycle nuclear
fuel, increasing its efficiency and possibly reducing its danger. ...
Numatec - the Tri-Cities' 'French connection'
... Numatec other parent is Cogema, the owner and operator of facilities used to produce
and recycle nuclear fuel, including many designed and built by SGN. ...
... gas equivalent). Uranium offers a long-term source of energy. Unlike
fossil fuels, we can recycle nuclear fuel. We can recover ...
[MMA Alumni] Helping out MMA Nuclear Employed Alumni
... Many MMA Grads are employed in the Nuclear Power industry, ever since President Carter
killed the national plans to recycle nuclear fuel as was always intended ...
[PDF] U. S. Nuclear Waste Policy: Reaching Critical Mass
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
... An Aside: Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Overseas In addition to the United States,
only two other countries don't recycle nuclear fuel as a matter of national ...
Salon.com Technology | Nukes now!
... Other countries, such as Japan and France -- which gets about 80 percent of its
electricity from nuclear power -- recycle nuclear fuel, but President Ford ...
Short answer-- what to do with spent nuclear fuel?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.