SKYscrubber.com                                                                                          Environmentalism's Nuclear Disaster
Home Page        Footnotes & Links

Environmentalism's Nuclear Disaster: Advocating Coal Instead Of Nuclear,

A terrible mistake that could have been easily avoided and remains easily mitigated.

Cleaning Up After The Environmentalists:  Coal to Nuclear
Fixing Environmentalism's Nuclear Disaster:  Environmentalists Wanted Coal Power Plants Instead of Nuclear
We can quickly and inexpensively fix the 1,200 mega-coal power plants that are making 30% of all Climate Change.

Who caused Global Warming to get so bad, so fast?  Anti-nuclear Environmentalists
 

Oops, environmentalists are caught making Global Warming worse.
20-20 Hindsight.  Are Environmentalists to blame for making Climate Change worse? Dr. James Lovelock thinks so.
 

Oops.  We just Supersized Global Warming !


Taichung Coal Power Plant, Taichung, Taiwan.  The largest single source of CO2 in the world.  Built after the Chernobyl reactor explosion.

How the environmentalists just made things worse by opposing nuclear

Global Warming became much worse because we lost the courage to stick to President Eisenhower’s 1953 “Atoms for Peace” advice that "we should convert from coal electricity to nuclear electricity" after the Three Mile Island accident happened 26 years later in 1979.  There have actually been over 100 such incidents over the years, most have been so small they have gone unnoticed save for the "Chicken Little" screeching from the environmentalists.

So, frightened by the environmentalists, the developing world decided they should make huge coal power plants instead of huge nuclear plants.
This locked us into the climate changing future that is beginning to dawn upon us now.

After World War II, the economic rivalry of the "Cold War" between Capitalism and Communism motivated nearly every country in the world to rebuild and/or industrialize rapidly to grow their economies.  Industrializing meant they needed abundant cheap electrical energy to power their industries and commerce, so the motive then was to build nuclear powered electricity plants to produce “Electricity Too Cheap to Meter."  Naive sounding today, but a far wiser goal than we realized at the time. 

Then came Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011.  None were major disasters like earthquakes, tsunamis, or even airplane crashes, but nuclear energy is still largely a mystery to the average person and the public recoiled in fear of the unknown - spooked by outrageously scary misinformation from the antinuclear environmentalists.

1953:  Atoms for Peace.  In 1953, President Eisenhower addressed the United Nations proposing his "Atoms for Peace.pdf" idea for, among other things, worldwide production of nuclear electricity.

We didn't realize it then, but "Atoms for Peace" was the world's chance to avoid the worst of Global Warming.

 

When we blew it and restarted Global Warming.  The beginning of the "Global Warming" epoch.

When Global Warming's growth was stopped for a few years.

(Data: U.S. EIA  http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/elec.html )

1980: Black line traces Global Warming's CO2 growth path.  The horizontal black arrow shows that there were a few years during which fossil fuel emission increases were halted, effectively halting the growth of Global Warming.  In the early 1980s, many new nuclear power plants were coming on line.  Few additional coal burning power plants were coming on line, and the amount of Global Warming CO2 coal power plants were making was not increasing

Three Mile Island in 1979, followed by a more serious accident at Chernobyl in 1986, made it very easy for the antinuclear environmentalists - such as Sierra Club and GreenPeace - to persuade everyone to stop building nuclear power plants and resume building coal burning power plants.   

1989: New nuclear power plant construction ended.  (Notice dark blue line going flat.)  The fossil fuels - mostly coal - were back in the driver's seat again, many of the new coal, natural gas and oil burning power plants, mimicking nuclear's rapid growth (blue) in power output, were much larger than before - becoming true boilers from hell - supersized units, along with more boiler units per power plant, producing far more Global Warming.  This is what put Global Warming permanently into high gear.  Note the vertical arrow in the above graph pointing out the additional coal electricity - and, by implication, the surge of Global Warming's CO2, that fossil fuel's return brought.  Over recent years the U.S. has seen a move to natural gas electricity which has brought large numbers of gas turbines - which produce 2/3 the CO2 of coal - into operation.

2009: Global Warming is now becoming much worse much faster.  Few seem to understand that what the world is doing now - building windmills and hoping something good will happen - amounts to environmental cargo-culting.  This is not fixing the power plant mess the antinuclear environmentals led us to build.

We now know nuclear is safe, coal is always dangerous, and we have to end Global Warming pronto.  To end Global Warming mankind has to go back and convert all those big power plant boilers from fossil to nuclear.  Building some windmills and hoping for the best isn't ever going to end Global Warming but does benefit the coal companies enormously.  They know only nuclear is clean enough and powerful enough to put them out of business.  Everyone needs to understand that also.

A hundred books and movies could be written about how the antinuclear environmentalists sucked the world into making Global Warming much worse. 

The author would like to think this data could be interpreted in some different way.

Notice that the time of victory for the antinuclear environmentalists - the 1980's - coincides with the "350" parts per million CO2 levels today's environmentalists say we must return to.  Ironic, isn't it?  Notice also emissions had actually begun to fall as nuclear was beginning to come on line just before the antinuclear environmentalists prevailed?  The environmentalists explain it as a global recession?

As far as the author knows, no one else in the world is writing about how to replace the fossil fuel burning boilers that cause over 70% of all Global Warming.  No government, no environmental organization, no nuclear organization, no school of engineering.  Only this web site.   

Three Mile Island's unfounded, but paralyzing, nuclear fears remain to this day, causing us to ignore the fact that whatever the problems of nuclear, they are nothing compared to Climate Change. 

Unlike the constant institutional advertising (happy talk) by the coal, natural gas, and oil industries, there has been virtually no effort over the years on the part of the nuclear industry to set the record straight.  This has given the public the clear, deep, and lasting impression that nuclear is, in fact, sinister.

The United States nuclear industry's "Cowardly Lion" behavior in response to this situation has left the entire world unimpressed and more than a little disappointed.

One result of the antinuclear environmentalist's use and abuse of our legal system in their efforts to paralyze United States' nuclear energy growth is that it was the environmentalists who promoted both fossil fuel burning and Global Warming's growth. 

The United States has become a nuclear backwater in the global nuclear industry, which is now dominated by China, France, Russia, Japan, and Korea.  As a consequence, we are now impotent in the area of influencing who gets the ability to enrich uranium.

 

 

20-20 Hindsight:

Are Environmentalists To Blame For Making Climate Change Worse?

"Had the United States gone on with its nuclear power plant building program after Three Mile Island, it's likely there would be no climate change crisis today."- Dr. James Lovelock, (World's top environmental advocate, author of the GAIA theory.)  His papers

Exceptionally eminent figures in the environmental movement such as James Lovelock have long since recognized that, whatever the challenges of nuclear power, they are as nothing compared to those of global warming.

Reasoning anything nuclear must be bad, combined with strong antinuclear funding support from the public and their very understandable fear and loathing of nuclear war, early nuclear supporting environmentalist organizations such as the Sierra Club made a mistake by throwing their support behind the antinuclear advocates in the 1960s. 

By helping to prevent the general evolution from coal electricity to nuclear electricity under Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" program, environmentalists inadvertently helped to bring about Global Warming as the second and third worlds industrialized and chose coal instead of nuclear for their electrification programs. 

Between 1960 and 2005, world coal burning quadrupled as electricity use quadrupled.

By about 1995, climatologists identified dirty electricity from coal-burning power plants as being the cause of 2/3 of the accumulating CO2 problem.

Real antinuclear advocates will continue doing all they can to oppose nuclear technology in any form except when they personally need nuclear medicine.

Environmentalist opposition to nuclear electricity has become the biggest single barrier to ending the Global Warming CO2 crisis.     

Environmentalists must now decide whether Climate Change or their continued opposition to clean nuclear electricity is most important to them.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

Footnotes & Links

Links checked

________________________________________________________________

Back to opening page.  >  Forward to more SKYscrubber  >