I wonder if the anti-nuclear energy folks ever actually talk to experts in the electricity utilities sector. They tend to throw around talking points like following but it seems to me that a single conversation with any of the experts at NB Power would be clarifying. From the Brunswick News story:
People with an agenda never talk to experts—that would lead to recognizing truth, and that is abhorrent to their preconceived notions. Simply said, most people imagine things they want to be true, and then twist facts to suit the agenda they develop around those half-truths. Practical people who base their lives and careers on logic remain silent on the sidelines, knowing that the laws of nature and logic always win, albeit sometimes at great cost. The pain caused by ignorance scars society, and the resistance to all things nuclear is a perfect example.
200,000 soldiers and hundreds of civilians are dead or displaced in the fourteenth month of the Ukraine war and many more will die or have their lives ruined as we try to limit our help to Ukraine to placate Putin lest he use a nuclear weapon. A hundred and fifty thousand were killed by nuclear bombs at Horoshima and Nagasaki in WW2, but not until seventy million had been killed with conventional weapons. The safety record of over five hundred nuclear power plants worldwide is unequalled by any other form of electricity generation. The fear of nuclear power, whether in a bomb or in a power plant is irrational paranoia, and diverts attention from the most important problems and solutions that are right in front of us.
New Brunswick can be energy independent with among the lowest energy costs in North America and hundreds of millions in revenue from electricity exports, or we can fumble around in the dark, following ignorant discourse based on myths or hypotheses on what "could" happen, dependent on Quebec and Newfoundland for expensive power that will make manufacturing in our province uncompetitive... it's our choice.
Two Main concerns of mine: The offsetting to future generations of the responsibility to deal with nuclear waste and the risks associated with an accident that we will never be able to rule out. Catastrophes, throughout our history and advances of technology have been on the slow decline. They are less frequent but the severity of their impacts when they happen are larger than ever. I suggest the work of Jessie Signer "There Are No Accidents" on this topic and how the major players in our economic system (I know it's the best we've come with) benefits from human catastrophes at the expense of everyone else. Also, I always hear on how we can respond to our current and future energy needs but I fail to notice the part where we talk on becoming more efficient. We see this with the efficiency of vehicles in the last 30 years. We've offset the gains in technology with heavier and faster, stronger vehicles that we don't even need, convinced by the sales pitch of manufacturers that now see higher profit margins for said vehicles.
People with an agenda never talk to experts—that would lead to recognizing truth, and that is abhorrent to their preconceived notions. Simply said, most people imagine things they want to be true, and then twist facts to suit the agenda they develop around those half-truths. Practical people who base their lives and careers on logic remain silent on the sidelines, knowing that the laws of nature and logic always win, albeit sometimes at great cost. The pain caused by ignorance scars society, and the resistance to all things nuclear is a perfect example.
200,000 soldiers and hundreds of civilians are dead or displaced in the fourteenth month of the Ukraine war and many more will die or have their lives ruined as we try to limit our help to Ukraine to placate Putin lest he use a nuclear weapon. A hundred and fifty thousand were killed by nuclear bombs at Horoshima and Nagasaki in WW2, but not until seventy million had been killed with conventional weapons. The safety record of over five hundred nuclear power plants worldwide is unequalled by any other form of electricity generation. The fear of nuclear power, whether in a bomb or in a power plant is irrational paranoia, and diverts attention from the most important problems and solutions that are right in front of us.
New Brunswick can be energy independent with among the lowest energy costs in North America and hundreds of millions in revenue from electricity exports, or we can fumble around in the dark, following ignorant discourse based on myths or hypotheses on what "could" happen, dependent on Quebec and Newfoundland for expensive power that will make manufacturing in our province uncompetitive... it's our choice.
Two Main concerns of mine: The offsetting to future generations of the responsibility to deal with nuclear waste and the risks associated with an accident that we will never be able to rule out. Catastrophes, throughout our history and advances of technology have been on the slow decline. They are less frequent but the severity of their impacts when they happen are larger than ever. I suggest the work of Jessie Signer "There Are No Accidents" on this topic and how the major players in our economic system (I know it's the best we've come with) benefits from human catastrophes at the expense of everyone else. Also, I always hear on how we can respond to our current and future energy needs but I fail to notice the part where we talk on becoming more efficient. We see this with the efficiency of vehicles in the last 30 years. We've offset the gains in technology with heavier and faster, stronger vehicles that we don't even need, convinced by the sales pitch of manufacturers that now see higher profit margins for said vehicles.