Breaking News

We should embrace Nuclear Power – it’s the only sensible option

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

I used to oppose nuclear power, Dr. Vernon Coleman says. But not anymore.  

Building nuclear power stations is a national policy that makes sense.  “Those countries which have nuclear power stations will at least be able to provide their citizens with heat and light … unless we are all prepared to go to bed when it gets dark, and to stay in bed when the weather gets cold, there really isn’t another sensible option,” he writes.

“Nuclear power is inevitable. We should ignore the nutters and hurry up and build more reactors before it’s too late,” he adds.


Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…


By Dr. Vernon Coleman

The insane pseudo-environmentalists and the mad greens have campaigned strongly against nuclear power. In Germany they have been so successful that nuclear power plants have been closed down and the Germans are now obtaining their electricity by burning coal. (I wonder if that is quite what the nutters had in mind when they fought to close the nuclear power plants.)

Other countries which have banned nuclear energy include Japan, Switzerland, Spain and Belgium. Many other countries have no nuclear power reactors including Austria, Australia, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Malaysia and Norway.

All this is rather odd since the EU has decided that nuclear energy should be considered green and sustainable (even though it relies on uranium which has to be dug out of the ground). Even young Greta has apparently given nuclear energy her stamp of approval!

Other countries, such as France, have for some time been increasing the amount of electricity they obtain from nuclear power. Indeed, France has been generating four-fifths of its electricity from nuclear power for years.

China’s leaders are well aware that oil is running out fast and so China is now working hard to acquire enough uranium to run the thousands of nuclear plants it knows it will have to build (and has already started building). China is planning to build nuclear power generators to supplement its coal-burning plants. The Chinese have also said that they will build strategic reserves of uranium. In 2006, China obtained less than 2% of its energy needs from nuclear plants. By building three large nuclear power generators a year, they will double this percentage.

Even the Arabs are keen to use nuclear energy, though the Americans are opposed to their building nuclear power stations. The Arabs say that nuclear power is the energy of the future and (not unreasonably) that no one has the right to stop them using it. They recognise that their oil and gas supplies are fast running out and they want to sell what they’ve got left, rather than use it up themselves. Iran, still one of the world’s main sources of oil, is one of the countries which wants to convert to nuclear power internally and to sell the oil it produces to outside countries. This, they say, will enable them to continue making money and to have the cleanest fuel themselves. No wonder the American Government cannot understand: it’s a policy that makes good sense.

(If the Arabs, who hold most of the world’s remaining oil, want to use nuclear power what does that tell us about the remaining oil stocks?)

Britain, in contrast, has been woefully slow to build nuclear power stations. Protests from nutters who want us all to freeze or starve to death are partly responsible. But incompetence has also played its part. Meanwhile, ageing coal and nuclear power stations are being closed, and declining North Sea oil and gas production will make things even worse. Windfall taxes have resulted in oil companies abandoning the North Sea. Britain is reliant on imports of oil and gas from countries which don’t much like the British Government and which have ready markets for their products elsewhere.

Nuclear power is clean, effective and relatively safe.

France, which gets most of its electricity from nuclear power, has the cleanest air in the industrialised world and the cheapest electricity in Europe. The French do not store their nuclear waste. Instead, they reprocess it. Instead of burying spent fuel rods deep in the sea or underground they have built a massive plant on the coast of Normandy to recycle the used fuel and so reuse it.

Those who complain that nuclear power isn’t safe should know that every year the deaths caused by coal mining exceed the number of deaths associated with the entire history of nuclear reactors.

Lighting a candle is dangerous. Having a bonfire is dangerous. But if you’re measuring safety then nuclear power is to coal mining what passenger flight is to bungee jumping. In recent years there have not been any serious incidents at any of the nuclear plants operating in the USA (plants which provide 18% of America’s electricity). Around 200,000 coal miners have died as a result of coal mining.

Both China and South Africa are building advanced power plants – to protect themselves from rising coal and natural gas prices and to meet new restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions – and the plants they are building seem extraordinarily safe.

During a safety test at a Chinese reactor, engineers did their best to create a disaster. They cut off the flow of the coolant that removes heat from the nuclear reactor and then withdrew the control rods – usually a recipe for meltdown. The reactor simply shut down with no damage or threat.

Nuclear power produces virtually no carbon dioxide and is very climate-friendly; it is, it seems, the only cost-effective and environmentally acceptable way of creating electricity.

Nuclear power doesn’t provide all the answers. It certainly doesn’t provide an alternative fuel for motor vehicles, aeroplanes and ships. But it’s a start, and those countries which have nuclear power stations will at least be able to provide their citizens with heat and light. And, of course, small and cheaper nuclear power plants will soon be available.

Those who oppose nuclear power point out that uranium is a finite resource. This is obviously true. However, it is usually fairly easy to mine, and can be reused. Some experts say there is enough to last for centuries.

Critics also point out that nuclear reactors use a lot of water. They do indeed. But the water that has been used isn’t “used,” it’s just borrowed to cool the reactor and then recycled. It is warmed. Clever scientists could, no doubt, find a way to harness the heat from the water. And far less water is used for nuclear power than is used by people washing out yoghurt cartons and jam jars for the recycling nonsense.

I used to oppose nuclear power.

But unless we are all prepared to go to bed when it gets dark, and to stay in bed when the weather gets cold, there really isn’t another sensible option. How many of those who oppose nuclear power will be happy to turn off their television sets, radios, computers and dishwashers?

Or maybe those who oppose nuclear power prefer biofuels and are prepared to put up with mass starvation in poorer nations so that they can continue to use their computers?

Nuclear power is inevitable. We should ignore the nutters and hurry up and build more reactors before it’s too late.

NOTE
Vernon Coleman’s book ‘A Bigger Problem than Climate Change‘ explains the history of oil production (including the geopolitics) and explores the problems caused by the fact that the world is running out of oil. `A Bigger Problem than Climate Change’ is available via the bookshop on Dr. Coleman’s website.

Share this page to Telegram
4 2 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
27 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Aida
Aida
2 months ago

How do we deal with the radioactive waste product that are not safe for thousands of years. Instead of Nuclear Reactors we should look into thermal energy. Its safer and sustaInable. There’s plenty of it undergtound.

Brin Jenkins
Brin Jenkins
Reply to  Aida
2 months ago

As and when its shown to be viable of course we should. In the meanwhile Iceland has it but few others. Without Nuclear our only alternative is coal or gas, and as CO2 is unable to act as claimed why on earth keep scrapping traditional generation. Net zero will kill civilisation with no effect on climate.

Ralph Taylor
Ralph Taylor
Reply to  Brin Jenkins
2 months ago

not mean’t to kill the civilised only the cattle and the useless eaters the elite will remain intheir version of civilisation

Tony Ryan
Tony Ryan
Reply to  Aida
2 months ago

There is still no answer. Nor do enthusiasts provide the massive cost of decommissioning.

SilencedAbi4
SilencedAbi4
Reply to  Aida
2 months ago

radioactive waste product that are not safe for thousands of years

The wild life around Chernobyl went back to normal just 10 years later. I had a vet friend, she told it that interestingly animals went back to that area and looked to be ok.
I don’t campaign, just mentioned something which makes no sense. Just how the half-life we were taught in school makes no sense, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be ghost towns but they are not.

We can’t discuss nuclear energy if we don’t understand it and I don’t understand these.

Islander
Islander
Reply to  SilencedAbi4
2 months ago

So true!!!

SilencedAbi4
SilencedAbi4
Reply to  Aida
2 months ago

For me the real question is: where there power does go? With the vax there are less and less people, also less and less newborn, what generate the over consumption then?

It just occurred to me that the net zero is a cover story for the elevated consumption by THEM. 5g, Data Centres for servers, which requires even cooling (cloud, AI, processing data coming from the surveillance and from people – IoB, the weather modification tools like HAARP, DEW – plenty of planes – chemtrailing, heating up the ionosphere) all with energy consumption.

Clive Taylor-Sholl
Clive Taylor-Sholl
2 months ago

The problem with Nuclear Power is that it is BASE LOAD and difficult if not impossible to regulate. For example on a Friday evening between the hours of 5-8pm the power demand in the UK almost doubles in the winter months,Nuclear cannot deal with this, and 100% green energy is a joke. It must therefore be conventional Power Stations that can maintain the 50HZ frequency required to avoid power cuts. Thought needs to go into this problem unless we rely on imported power during these times.

John Wood
John Wood
Reply to  Clive Taylor-Sholl
2 months ago

I agree that nuclear power cannot be varied to match the load, but disagree that ‘100% green energy is a joke’. The first things is surely to review demand. Here in the Highlands of Scotland we have generated more electricity than we can use for decades from renewable sources, especially hydro. We have pumped storage schemes that are mothballed . We have world beating tidal and wave energy generation being developed in the north. And now apparently our entire landscape is to be covered with giant wind turbines, pylons and substations – why? I have solar panels on my roof that generate all my electricity and more in the summer months. So who actually needs all this power. The UK hardly has any heavy industry anymore. Could it be the Internet of Things? Data Centres? 5G? These use vast amounts of electricity, and who really benefits? Every winter we have power cuts. They are not caused by a lack of power stations but the failure of the UK to invest in undergrounding the cables – unlike Denmark, who have been undergrounding theirs for decades. Not in the UK, only corporate profits matter.

jont
jont
Reply to  Clive Taylor-Sholl
2 months ago

Not sure if that is true. For example a nuclear submarine has to go from lurking to flat out almost immediately and it can’t just dump heat for fear of detection!

Alan
Alan
2 months ago

We should be investing in Thorium Reactors..

Tony Ryan
Tony Ryan
2 months ago

According to one report, a single nuclear device detonated 120 kilometres above Ohio, would not injure any person, but it would deactivate the entire US electric reticulation and generation system, including the apparatus that monitors nuclear power plant rod cooling systems, leading to uncontrollable meltdown. This can be done anywhere as an EM pulse weapon. So just keep your nuclear plants upwind from me.

SilencedAbi4
SilencedAbi4
Reply to  Tony Ryan
2 months ago

Oh they irony, they are threatening us with blackouts. They have HAARP, DEW, the last thing I am worried about nowadays is nukes.

trackback
2 months ago

[…] We should embrace Nuclear Power – it’s the only sensible option […]

Wrip
Wrip
2 months ago

Was a good idea until DEI came along

Dave Owenhttps://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/for
Dave Owenhttps://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/for
2 months ago

Hi Rhoda,
That is nice having Vernon Coleman to listen to again.
He has some good ideas, but we should not put all our eggs in one basket.
Our daft MP’s in the UK, closed most of our coal mines.
Then imported the coal from China and Australia.
If we burnt our Treasonous MP’s at the stake, that would generate some heat.

Sarah
Sarah
2 months ago

Nuclear power is a flawed option because any nuclear device is a target.
When we achieve ‘World Peace’ it may make sense.
There is a video out there from the Japanese Minister of finance stating that he was clearly warned by US oligarchs earth quake would strike Japan if he did not do as they say. FUK U SHIMA!

SilencedAbi4
SilencedAbi4
Reply to  Sarah
2 months ago

Doesn’t matter anymore. Think about Maui! Man made fires and earthquakes and floods, if they want to target an area they will.

This world peace smells like New World Order propaganda.

John Wood
John Wood
2 months ago

I am surprised and shocked to see the Expose publish this statement: “Nuclear power is clean, effective and relatively safe.” It is none of those things. In fact it is the exact opposite. It is a complete disaster for people and planet alike, from the exploitation of the uranium mines to the radioactive pollution of the entire Pacific ocean after Fukushima, and the use of plutonium and depleted uranium in battlefield weapons. I have been supporting the Expose up to now, and I appreciate your work in general, but this article was completely out of order. Let’s have no more of this nonsense please.

John Wood
John Wood
Reply to  John Wood
2 months ago

Well I have campaigned against nuclear power for over 50 years. It does not make me an ‘insane pseudo-environmentalist’ or a ‘mad green’. When people resort to childish name-calling it destroys any credibility they once had. The whole article has nothing valid to say whatsoever. It is just empty ‘advertorial’ by the nuclear industry.

Ali
Ali
Reply to  John Wood
2 months ago

I totally agree

SilencedAbi4
SilencedAbi4
Reply to  John Wood
2 months ago

I downvoted you but it didn’t count. (? wow)
No, let’s carry on speaking about it till we can understand how it works.
Again, the life went back normal around Chernobyl just 10 years later, animals went back and they were ok.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be empty (half-life) but they are not.
Someone is lying to us again.

You can’t make good decisions based on false knowledge, false propaganda.

The green energy doesn’t work (and not so green by the way), coal is smelly and generate smog, wood also but we have to use them or we can freeze considering the price of “clean” heating.

By the way their beloved 5G is a big energy eater, just how their beloved AI (base, just have a look at any big server centres, requiring not only to run those storages but constant cooling, too).

Is it possible that the root of the problem is their excess energy consumption but us??

Dave Owen
Dave Owen
Reply to  John Wood
2 months ago

Hi John Wood,
How do yo suggest we generate power to use in our homes ?

Islander
Islander
Reply to  Dave Owen
2 months ago

Well said, but more than this; what exactly does “nuclear” mean? Atomic energy? What is it?

It is all a scam.

Is nuclear energy “fired” up from coal, or uranium? What is uranium-does it exist even?

We have been scared into believing the damnable lie that nuclear energy takes thousands of years to become harmless to mankind-yet read what Abi has posted-she’s “on the nail” on this!

SilencedAbii
SilencedAbii
Reply to  Islander
2 months ago

I don’t know what’s going on on a nuclear plant but there are no nuclear bombs, they were faked. That explains the missing half-life part.
https://truthcomestolight.com/michael-palmer-on-hiroshima-and-the-faked-atomic-bombing/

Islander
Islander
Reply to  SilencedAbii
2 months ago

I’ll look at that-thanks Abi!

Dave Owenhttps://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/for
Dave Owenhttps://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/for
Reply to  John Wood
2 months ago

Hi John Wood,
Strange that Israeli cameras, had just been fitted to the Fukushima power plant.
They were very large and very heavy, people had noticed this.
https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=188445