I think it is important to demonstrate that there is a viable alternative to nuclear power and that does not pollute with either carbon dioxide emissions or deadly radioactive isotopes. I think demonstrating that alternative is one of the best arguments against nuclear power.

As you mention, distributed renewable sources of energy are the way to go. The one problem with renewable sources is the intermittent nature of the supply. That problem can be solved by having energy storage become an integral part of the grid and by coordinating the movement of energy between the energy stores through a smart grid.

Obviously, plug-in electric vehicles will include batteries with a substantial capacity. Another major development is large capacity batteries in the megawatt range. Sodium-sulfur batteries have been installed with a number of wind farms so that if the wind is not turning the blades of the wind turbines, the battery could still deliver energy to the grid [link]. There is also some new research funding in the US that is going into developing cheap thermal energy storage for use at solar thermal power stations [link].

The problem with energy systems at the moment is primarily a problem about the storage of energy. General Electric have recently announced that they will be building a new factory to manufacture sodium-sulfur batteries, mostly for use in electric trains and many other applications including load leveling in the smart grid [link].

This alternative is what will defeat nuclear power. I still expect, though, that many nations that currently have nuclear weapons will continue to build nuclear reactors, but probably not under the guise of providing energy without the greenhouse gas emissions.

“RBA? Try WMDs”

To: letters@theage.com.au, sunday@theage.com.au, investigations@theage.com.au
Sat 6 June, 2009

So the Reserve Bank of Australia had links with the former dictator of a country suspected of having weapons of mass destruction, but which actually didn’t (‘RBA link to Saddam regime’, 6/6).

Right now I could list more than a dozen common household names* with provable and direct links to the designing, building, testing, fueling, and delivering of WMDs. Many would be shocked. But would you publish this letter?

(*GE, IBM, Hitachi, Rosebank, Mitsubishi, BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto, Toshiba, Westinghouse, Siemens, Boeing, et al..)

“Our nuclear transport system”

To: The Age
Cc: Opinion piece writer Jim Schembri
Friday 24 April, 2009

It’s interesting that Jim Shembri (Opinion, 24/4/09) should question the state of Melbourne’s trains thus: “are Melbourne’s public transport woes as bad as, say, global thermo-nuclear war?”. Given that our trains are made by Hitachi* and Siemens# – both of which have proven, direct contracts with components for testing nuclear weapons, uranium enrichment and producing nuclear fuel – the answer from crushed commuters could at least be a concerned “hmmmmm…?”. Now there’s “an interesting, actual, not-made-up fact”.

* A U.S.-Japanese joint venture will be built by GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy and its subsidiary, Global Laser Enrichment, of which Cameco, a Canadian firm, has a 24 percent stake. It will use Australian Silex laser technology (classified ‘Restricted Data’ by the US government due to proliferation risks) and is expected to be in operation on a commercial scale by 2012.
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
http://www.pi.hitachi.co.jp/rd-eng/product/nuclear-sys/

# Siemens’ primary sale to the military is plutonium and electronic communication systems. Siemens makes and services nuclear power plants, both pressurised water reactors and boiling water reactors.

Near Munich, Siemens is constructing a new research reactor, which, in spite of international protest, is intended to be operated on uranium fit for military use.
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/corporate/dd/siemens.html

Fortunately, we are in the Internet age. Mass media publications such as Fairfax’s can no longer get away with such spin.

As the corporate world continues to plug its financial interests via mass media – this media loses credibility. Fairfax’s writers are probably well aware of this risk.

The more the Becruz’s of cyberworld show up things like this conflict of interest – the more light will be shown on the nuclear hypocrisy.
I’d like to see more light on this “base-load energy” line, too. For one thing, wind solar and geotherm are already able to provide “base-load”.
For another thing, small decentralised energy sources are obviously very efficient, and eliminate dependence on costly centralised grids.