[ RadSafe ] UK: Renewables a better option than nuclear power: but nuclear is needed for maintaining nuclear weapons

[John R Johnson]

Andreas

I have sometimes had the same thought, but there are some none Christrina scientists on this list that makes it worth while.

John 
> On Dec 30, 2017, at 2:17 PM, Dr. Andreas Kronenberg <kronenberg at kernchemie.de> wrote:
> 
> God damn, I thought this is a serious list of experts in the field, not a blog for anti-atom nonsense. Please delete me from this list. I don't need such stupid emails.
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: RadSafe [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] Im Auftrag von Roger Helbig
> Gesendet: Samstag, 30. Dezember 2017 15:00
> An: RADSAFE <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Betreff: [ RadSafe ] UK: Renewables a better option than nuclear power: but nuclear is needed for maintaining nuclear weapons
> 
> Another false claim by the anti-nuclear power campaigners.
> 
> https://climatenewsnetwork.net/cheap-renewables-undercut-nuclear-power/
> 
> Roger Helbig
> 
> UK: Renewables a better option than nuclear power: but nuclear is needed for maintaining nuclear weapons
> 
> by Christina MacPherson
> 
> Cheap renewables undercut nuclear power,  The technology advances and plunging costs of cheap renewables make base load nuclear power redundant. Climate News Network, by Paul Brown, LONDON, 29 December,
> 2017 ".........Completion doubts
> 
> Even the former UK energy secretary Sir Edward Davey, who signed off on the Hinkley Point deal, said “the economics have clearly gone away.” He doubted that the building would ever be completed, he told Greenpeace in an interview.
> 
> All the other UK nuclear projects are still at various stages of planning, and how any of them will be paid for is yet to be worked out. It is already clear that none can be financed without government subsidy.
> 
> An important political development in 2017 was that for the first time both the US and the UK admitted that their support for the nuclear industry is linked to the need to maintain their military capability in nuclear submarines and personnel. This is key, because both powers have previously claimed that there is no link between civil and military nuclear industries.
> 
> Even before their admission it was already clear that the big economies which have no nuclear weapons, like Germany, can see no point in having a civil nuclear industry.
> 
> Export drive
> 
> That does not stop smaller countries, some without any nuclear power stations at all at present, signing agreements with the Russian state-owned company Rosatom. In what many see as a Russian policy to extend its international influence, Rosatom already says it is building reactors in Belarus, China, India, Bangladesh, Hungary, Turkey, Finland and Iran, and is seeking to expand, with tenders in for 23 other reactors abroad.
> 
> These include Sudan, where the current president is wanted for war crimes. Whether all the plans will come to fruition remains doubtful.
> https://climatenewsnetwork.net/cheap-renewables-undercut-nuclear-power/
> 
> Christina MacPherson | December 30, 2017 at 9:11 am | Categories:
> politics, politics international, UK | URL: https://wp.me/phgse-yOP _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> 
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu