Investigating anti-nuclear politicians for fossil fuel ties

[GCarty]

How useful would it be (assuming we could somehow find someone with enough time to do it) to investigate the finances of politicians who oppose nuclear energy, to find out if their opposition has been bought by fossil fuel money?

Since almost everyone -- not just environmentalists -- views the big fossil fuel companies as dirty profiteers, might this be a good way of generating publicity and discrediting the anti-nuclear movement.

[Michael]

Quite frankly that's not really a path I would want to go. Blaming "Big Oil" for all the ills in the world is such a worn out argument... and in my eyes a rather immature and silly one.

But(!)...

...this is because in Sweden, fossil fuels play a limited role in our energy supply. Our electricity is completely fossil free (except the effect-reserve). We almost never use gas for heating and/or cooking. And oil is playing a diminishing role in heating. This means that in Sweden, there isn't an issue about whether we should have things like gas: we won't. The few industrialists that have tried to claim that basicly got laughed at.

In other countries however it's a bit different.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/na ... 1114066551

AN expanded nuclear power industry poses the greatest threat to coal miners' jobs, surpassing the risks associated with other greenhouse reduction measures.

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union mining division boss Tony Maher warned yesterday that nuclear power would jeopardise job security for coal miners and power workers.

As his union launched an advertising campaign attacking the Howard Government's greenhouse policy, Mr Maher said: "The real threat to coal miners' job security and power workers' job security is 25 nuclear reactors in Australia.

Rod Adams for instance often looks into the possible connection between anti-nuclears and gas mongers.

Old blog: http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/
New site: http://atomicinsights.com/

Look for his "smoking gun" posts. They look deep into that.

/Michael

[GCarty]

Firstly, how is heating normally done in Sweden? Given the Swedish climate, the electricity consumption required for resistive heating would be colossal, so are heat pumps currently used?

I frequently read Atomic Insights, and had already seen the Australian advert attacking nuclear power which you attached. However, what I am suggesting is that since (except in poor, benighted Germany and Austria) there are no longer powerful anti-nuclear activist groups, the regulations that cripple nuclear technology were quite likely to have been introduced for corrupt reasons. As for Germany, I designed this anti-Gerhard Schroeder poster myself, when I heard about what he had done after leaving office (the left-hand mugshot by the way is Erich Honecker, the former puppet ruler of Communist East Germany):



I understand that Sweden had a referendum in 1980 (the year I was born, incidentally!), which asked the public not if nuclear power should be phased out, but when. Surely if the anti-nukes believed that they had public opinion on their side, they would have offered a real referendum, instead of this phony referendum. Is there any evidence that vested interests of any kind were involved in that stitch-up?

[Michael]

Firstly, how is heating normally done in Sweden? Given the Swedish climate, the electricity consumption required for resistive heating would be colossal, so are heat pumps currently used?

For cities: district heating, or electricity.

For houses: electricity, oil, wood/pellets, heat pumps.

I understand that Sweden had a referendum in 1980 (the year I was born, incidentally!), which asked the public not if nuclear power should be phased out, but when.

Yeah, that is correct. Three options, which were in essence two different alternatives for closing down. "Line" 1 and 2 was "when alternatives are available" and line 3 was "within 10 years". Basicly it had nothing to do with the environment, or safety or anything like that... it was politics. The Polticians knew that closing down nuclear power was impossible, or Sweden would crash. At the same time the public opinion was huge against nuclear power. So the referendum was pushed through the the issue away from the politicians and put it in the hands of the people instead.

It was bullshit from start to end...

/Michael

[GCarty]

For cities: district heating, or electricity.

Is that nuclear district heating?

(It would seem likely as Sweden is IIRC half-nuclear and half-hydro, with negligible fossil fuel use in power plants. Then again, anti-nuclear paranoia could be greater re district heating as there is an actual movement of material between the power plant and the heated building, unlike with electricity.)

[Michael]

For cities: district heating, or electricity.

Is that nuclear district heating?

Nope. Waste and forest waste mostly.

/Michael