Now someone tell me that it is just a paranoid conspiracy theory, the idea that coal is a big force behind the antinuclear movement.
Just to add a little extra context, this ad was run just before the Australian federal election which saw the Liberal party (who are similar to the Tories in Britain and whom support nuclear power in Australia) defeated by the Labour party (founded and still associated with the trade union movement of which the CFMEU is a part of).
Call me stubborn, but a statement on the part of a coal mining union that nuclear power means the end of their jobs does not prove the generalization "the coal industry is behind the anti-nuclear movement." Do ads about nuclear power's "clean air benefits" prove that the environmental movement and global warming debate are tools of a nuclear industry conspiracy to destroy fossil fuels?
Coal miners can say provocative things about nuclear power because they stand no chance to make money off it. So can, to the extent that they are not controlled proxy-wise and/or held hostage by utilities and/or manufacturers, coal mining companies. But there just simply is no reason for an energy company to pay someone to say bad things about one of their business units. It doesn't make sense.
Sure it happens where nuclear power is not a player--in the US, West Virginia's reactor ban was almost certainly instigated this way--but most places don't have that degree of monopolization. Of course there's more money to be made in coal mining than uranium mining--but try telling that to a utility and see if that argument gets them to shut down an amortized nuclear power plant.
Don't get me wrong; there are conflicts of interest. For example, the single biggest beneficiary of a nuclear phaseout in the US would be General Electric--so it would be reasonable to conclude that they would not be reliable allies in such a political fight. Likewise, coal miners are not going to like new build. But utilities aren't going to support a nuclear phaseout, GE isn't going to make public statements bashing one of their product lines or fund political opposition to it, and diversified holding companies generally don't make a practice of close out options for investment.
Stewart:
Interesting that you mention GE - I just watched a good portion of the Olympic coverage and did not see a single ESBWR ad sprinkled among the dozens of ads for a lot of other GE owned energy business units.
We have a phrase in the Navy called "damning with faint praise". It is often used in fitness reports to ensure that people that are less favored do not get promoted, but they also do not have any grounds for protest of their evaluation.
Corporations most definitely will work to maximize their total profit, even if that means sacrificing one of their own businesses. In the tech world they call that creative destruction.
I once lived in a town that had two Sam's Warehouse stores and on similar warehouse store from a chain whose name has been lost in my memory banks. The non Sam's store was well stocked, run by a courteous and trained staff and was only 3 miles from my house. The two Sam's Clubs were each about 8 miles away - in opposite directions and did not provide anything worth the drive.
Sam's bought the other chain. Many people in the town were pleased and thought it was great that Sam's would be investing more in their new store. Sam's put up signs, but otherwise did nothing to change the store. Within a year, the property was sold to a developer who turned the building into something completely different.
Hmm - does that qualify as closing down a business unit to increase the profits of the overall corporation?
"job destruction" is absolutely vital for society and the source of almost all our wealth.
Consider that a few hundred years ago over 90% of people were farmers. If anyone today bemoans the fact that we "destroyed" these lousy, back-breaking jobs they get laughed at. It didn't lead to any chronic job shortage; we freed these people up to do more productive thing in society and we are all richer for it.
Getting laid off is painful; but we should strive to make the transition as pleasant as possible, not cling on to the past.
To coal miners I would like to add many other jobs that are completely superfluous; e.g. do we really need grown men riding around on bikes hand delivering spam through slots in our doors and boxes outside our houses? Wouldn't it be better to handle this electronically?
Do we really need an entire army of intelligent, highly trained professionals whose only purpose is to find loop-holes just barely on the side of legality in ridiculously convoluted tax codes(the US federal tax code is 44 000 pages long)? Couldn't we have a simple flat tax; no deductions, no posibillity of arbitrage from redistribution onto different entities?
There's no end to the work that needs to be done and it's particularly wasteful to have intelligent, capable people working menial or unnecessary jobs instead of becomming engineers, scientists, doctors, programmers, entrepreneurs...
OT:
Rod, I have left a comment in the comments for your latest podcast. It is awaiting moderation. You may be unaware of it, or you may have decided not to publish it. I shall not fault you either way, but I'm keen to learn which scenario applies.
Interesting that you mention GE - I just watched a good portion of the Olympic coverage and did not see a single ESBWR ad sprinkled among the dozens of ads for a lot of other GE owned energy business units.
Good point Rod. I saw the most bizarre GE ads for all their renewable foolishness, including some discus-throwing, Parthenon-destroying ad that was supposed to have something to do with wind power and another bizarre one where little Chinese children had to tease a dragon to make hot water (I think it had something to do with biomass).
But nothing about the ESBWR.
GE knows what the public wants to hear--that "clean, green" energy is simple cheap and right around the corner and ready to salve your conscience on global warming. But despite the red-faced protestations of Joe-Romm-types, it's just not true.
Those black-faced guys down in the coal mine know where today's energy really comes from.
Finrod - sorry for the delay, I occasionally forget to check the podcast comment queue. Your very interesting and perceptive comment has been approved and is visible - others interested in the battle over hearts and minds should go take a look at it.
Soylent - though the ad pictures coal miners I suspect that it was funded by coal mine owners. The challenge associated with convincing capital assets to learn to perform new tasks is much greater than it is with human beings. Coal cars cannot become containment buildings very easily.
That makes the owners of capital protective of their wealth and privilege. They do not necessarily accept the inevitability of their loss of stature and will take action to protect their position. Sometimes that action is not straightforward.
Kirk - I am more cynical. People frequently believe what they have been told to believe. GE has had plenty of opportunity to shape and mold public opinion - after all they have owned a network since the days when there were only three paths into the brains of most Americans - CBS, NBC and ABC. Interestingly enough, the company founded by a different George W (as in circle W) owned CBS and eventually became CBS.
There are two ways to interpret what happened in the public relations battle - either the reactor vendors were simply outclassed by people who understood people better (a distinct possibility) or they made some computations and determined that nuclear power was not worth protecting at the potential expense to their other lines of business.
Robotics will eliminate coal mining jobs faster than anything else. Sing along with me:
"John Henry was hammering on the right side,
The big steam drill on the left,
Before that steam drill beat him down,
He hammered his fool self to death."
Randal:
Based on what I have read about underground mining and what I know about the state of the art of robotics, I cannot imagine using robots to replace miners.
However, the coal mining industry figured out a far "less costly" approach quite a number of years ago. As long as one of two situation occur, they can get by with a lot less miners per unit ton of coal. 1. the coal seam is wide and deep and relatively close to the earth's surface. 2. the coal seam can be reached by explosive excavation.
(Note, I put the words less costly in quotes because it is only true if one places no value on mountains, valleys and streams. In the case number 2 above, the explosion is often used to blow off the top of a mountain.)
It's a great ad. I think the nuclear industry should run it everywhere they can afford.
"Nuclear power will kill the coal industry" - excellent. And from such a great source, too. I will use it with every environmentalist I debate, under the tag of "Which other energy source does the coal industry really worry about?"
One thing concerns me about the way this ad has been covered in pro-nuclear circles; many people seem to think it's current. It isn't. This was an ad tailored for the Australian federal election of NOVEMBER 2007.
I even noticed on the 'Industry talk" section of World Nuclear News that they state the union has 'just begun' to circulate this ad. I sent them a message correcting this on their feedback link, but it was either not read, or ignored.
I think that in presenting the pro-nuke case, it is good practice to be as accurate as possible. surely it is only our opponents who have to be loose with the facts.
Finrod:
I agree. I clearly stated when the ad appeared in my post, but one of the problems with the internet is that many people believe that what they are reading today is fresh, no matter when it was posted.
Oh well.
I am not sure that the fossil companies are so wedded to coal. I recall in the 90's utilities dropped coal for natural gas because the gas was so cheap and the plants were easy to build and run. Maybe if nuclear plants were as cheap and easy to run as gas turbines...
Didn't the craze for solar and wind also benefit natural gas though, due to its rapid throttling ability?
R. Margolis - utilities did not "drop coal"; they stopped building new coal fired power stations. The amount of coal burned each year continued to increase as they repowered and increased capacity factors at existing units.
When I say "fossil interests" I do not intend to imply that there is some kind of monolithic industry. It is a huge and widely varied group of individuals and companies that compete strongly against each other for shares of the fuel market.
My thesis is that many of the most tuned in participants in that industry have recognized the common enemy - from the selfish point of view of their continued prosperity - that fission poses to them.
I have a mental image of a group of high powered executive level men and women playing basketball at their favorite country club basketball court. They fight and scrap amongst each other, but all would unite and rewrite the challenge rules to keep out a group of Labron James quality youngsters from their games.
Commenting by HaloScan
