Nuclear is the new coalThe discussion threads on the Commission site focus on health issues and climate impacts of coal, while blind to the same issues inherent in nuclear technologies. Both are unbankable due to the systemic damage which will accrue through their use. the planet will not survive either of them.
Nuclear is hostileWe need electricity which does not make us a military target.
Uranium is weapons material. Increasing the uranium in circulation increases the market for war.
We need to divest from technologies which fuel the business of war. Nuclear war, peaceful nuclear accidents and waste all kill. Global warming will kill.
We need to invest in technologies that are ecologically constructive.
Thorium is hostileThorium has been used to generate weapons and is not a peaceful technology. Thorium halflife is millions of years. It is a hot thirsty technology. Not suited for SA. Not constructive systemically.
Hot, thirsty, toxicAll nuclear technologies currently used and in development are hot thirsty and generate toxic waste. Having a plant which has run without ‘serious incident’ for a couple of years or a decade is not interesting in the context of the long term liability that the plant represents and the aging of the materials used to contain the threat. We have an array of cold, safe, cheap, better energy options.
Global radiation loadIf we could divest from uranium/nuclear and shift to solar wind tidal technologies locally that would be a regional win. If we could participate in sharing that approach around the world to prevent more nuclear waste and radiation poisoning that would be a systemic win.
We need to offer alternatives to nuclear energy and be a part of shifting the world over to a safe future. In the same way that fossil fuels are a current risk, we know that nuclear is an ongoing threat. We can do better. We need to do better.
Growth marketIf we really cannot let go of nuclear then the growth market will be in bioremediation. The world will be saturated with nuclear radiation issues at current build rates and only companies which have techniques for absorbing and denaturing environmental effects on site will have something interesting to offer.
If we develop technologies which absorb and denature existing environmental radiation that would be less destructive than generating more problems. But If we can swap to safe technologies globally that would give us a better chance into the future.
Geothermal is hot energyGeothermal makes sense in Iceland where they are happy about the massive release of thermal energy and use it to farm fish. In Australia and on a planet wide scale geothermal is still a technology like nuclear that is hot and unhelpful regarding global warming. In SA in particular we do not need to generate heat. We have an abundance of cold sources of energy which do not pollute water, fresh or sea water, which do not compromise safe food.
Heat and radiation loadThe planet is overheating. Energy of the future will be cold and will be able to be recycled safely back into living systems. Compostable, generative, distributed, easy, cheap, safe, adaptable. We need techniques for reducing environmental radiation.
Increasing radioactive load on the planet is not constructive. The costs are too high. The planet has an excess of radiation and waste at present.
Do not generate any further load.
LiabilityNuclear centred societies will run out of able bodied citizens/workers, safe food, safe water, ecological context.
Nuclear legacy: Children of Chernobyl
(Warning: confronting genetic implications)
20% of children born healthy who subsequently become sick later.
Chernobyl is leaking to the Black Sea, Fukushima is cooking the Pacific.
When will the first litigation address generations of irreversible genetic destruction of all species due to a nuclear plant? As the Chernobyl impact leaks to the Black Sea and Fukushima takes on the Pacific which community will react first?
Past and current experience shows us that we do not have the skills to denature the risks, particularly over the longer term. Developing technologies and tools to bioremediate existing spills is the only responsible investment we can take in nuclear technologies.
The fact that the nuclear industry is not busy in Fukushima and Chernobyl working to capture radiation and save local species and communities speaks to the dislocation between generating the risk and standing by responsibilities for damage inherent in this industry.
Companies which are already complicit due to mining uranium and should step up to the plate to change this trajectory. Stop new sources of problems and address existing issues.
Support for local communities to have safe food, water, relocation, safe employment, and healthcare would not resolve existing damage but should be a bare minimum of responsibility of the nuclear industry to the communities already impacted by these technologies.
If you must work with nuclear materials do so in a way which reduces existing radiation and damage as a resource on site rather than generating further toxic systems.
If we want to help to resolve the issues at Chernobyl and Fukushima then can we develop ways to draw the radiation from the water, crops, animals, people, landscape.
Can we collect radiation in these regions using the radiation as energy to do it? Robotic?
Harvest plant species that collect radiation and use them as power sources to reduce more radiation? Filter and denature soil, filter ground water and absorb the radiation. What else can we do?
Careers due to nuclear radiationLots of medical careers for future generations? Oncology, genetic diseases, radiation poisoning, water pollution, war. Ongoing healthcare.
Radiation safe funereal industries.
If we are going to critique past governments for lack of duty of care, our current knowledge and experience globally shows us that further investment in nuclear would be an ongoing generational breach of duty of care. The planet already has a radiation load which is breaking ecologies and communities. We have the skills and expertise to develop new renewable technologies without those risks. QED.
Or a living futureInstead we could do renewable cold watersafe energy, which would be distributed allowing business to have their own essentially free power to run their own manufacture and distribution and they could innovate with those technologies and develop combined energy, water, storage, industry hubs which fit together as mixed manufacture in regional towns. This would give communities adaptive engineering capacity to develop new tools and technologies and could make energy a net profit rather than a cost to communities.
We need cold powerSolar, wind, wave can all generate power without heat. We need watersafe power. SA is the driest state in the driest contintent, any fresh ground water we have we need in perpetuity. Any gulf water we need for safe aquaculture and fisheries.
We need electricity which does not generate massive debts; economic, health, waste, water. We need electricity which is cheap, distributed, adaptive, and which works safely with prime safe food export industries. Encourages independence and regional development. Integrates with urban waste water as a fuel source and water storage as energy storage.
We do have a good range of safe alternatives in SA. We need to develop use and export those safe alternatives so that the global radiation load does not cause universal collapse regardless of local choices. We can do that as ideas or as products and services.
No patents pleaseWE ALL need the world to shift technologies so it is in our interests that they can adopt new technologies cheaply and contribute to innovation so public domain rights on constructive technologies would be useful. We need a broad based fast innovative curve on safe renewable technologies to avoid ecological collapse and climate change.
Solar is the safe nuclearEconomically the cost/benefit of on-planet nuclear has a bad trajectory and generates long increasing unavoidable systemic damage. Solar is the safe nuclear solution we have. The Sun is about 4.5 billion years of uptime. If we can sustain our atmosphere and temperature, and liquid magnetic core then we can expect to be without serious incident for some years to come. Other species use the Sun as an energy source. We can too.
Future of miningWe could use the chemical and materials knowledge of the mining sector to shift to a safer climate but nuclear is not the answer we need.
We could ‘mine’ the plastic gyres and the waters of the Pacific for radiation, we need to capture methane, cesium, other toxins, released into the environment from destructive fracking practices. We need to capture methane released in the arctic. We need to lower the ocean temperatures and balance ph. Plant trees and seagrass. There are many desperately urgent ecological shifts we need.
There may be less focus on traditional greenfield mining as food and water security and ecological collapse become primary issues. We have many of the minerals we need already in play above the ground and need to be smarter about recycling and developing technologies with non-contended resources which can be recycled easily and safely.