Nuclear Energy Lobby In U.S. Using Climate Change for Profit

I knew it was coming. I knew that once climate change could be used as an excuse that the utility companies and lobbyists would be out with their hands out and Congress would oblige them. Talk about a misiinformation campaign. The nuclear lobby is waging just as strong a campaign in lying to people about nuclear power's dangers as the tobacco companies did previously about smoking, and EXXON is in telling people climate change is a myth. And of course, they have the backing of the Congress ( particularly Republicans and Bush and Cheney,) including Barack Obama and other Democrats. Clinton claims to be agnostic on nuclear power, but again that isn't saying you are against it and I believe all of these campaigns have had dealings with the nuclear lobby. But the fact that Clinton didn't vote for the Energy Act of 2005 as Obama did may be a point in her favor, but that remains to be seen as it is reported the Clintons have also received support from Entergy in the past. John McCain of course also stands for nuclear. No surprise there.

As Al Gore stated on Capitol Hill in his testimony last year, nuclear power plants only come in one size: EXTRA LARGE. And it takes tons of Co2 to build them from the mining of the uranium (which causes health hazards and pollution and is a non renewable source) to their operation. So for this lobby to lie to people by telling them it exerts zero CO2 and that it is "green" is to me a misrepresentation meant to use the climate crisis for profit.

There has not been an application approved in thirty years and for good reason. Nuclear power kills. It kills our waterways, our fish, our marine life, and threatens the health and safety of human beings and other species.

Barack Obama knew all about that in Illinois, because he wound up standing on the side of the nuclear lobby in allowing them to continue leaking harmful toxic chemicals with a "voluntary" Bush- like giveaway regarding notice of leaks to customers. I then find it hard to believe he would stand up on a federal level to prevent any other plant from being built to do the same thing or to question how they are run. He has received hundreds of thousands in donations from EXELON and has gone along with touting it as green when it isn't. The fact it hasn't been considered as an alternate source of energy for the last thirty years only proves that point.

People then not only need to stand up to coal plants being built in this country without safeguards, but nuclear plants as well. They will not stop our reliance on oil now either as they will take years to be built at great expense. Also, with almost 40% of this country already in some stage of drought water is not something we should be wasting in this fashion, especially in light ofteh huge amounts of water going to make corn ethanol, which is another environmental waste. It is a rip off of the people as well who will then have to pay the costs of these billion dollar constructions regardless of whether they are completed or not. And this federal government will continue to subsidize it while solar and wind get their 'tax incentives' to keep them quiet as industries looking to make the most proft on this crisis get their support because they donate to their campaigns.

It's time to tell these candidates who appears to be carrying water for the nuclear industry that more plants will do nothing but heighten the risk of terrorist attack and ill health to our citizens and our waterways (not to mention the waste factor,) and we frankly don't have time to wait for them to build their monstrosities while the Earth continues to melt around us now. This is politics as usual, and any government that touts nuclear power is not one that will be decreasing its nuclear arsenal anytime soon either regardless of who is in the WH. How is that peaceful? How do we then condemn other countries increasing the use of nuclear power that leads to nuclear arsenals and look credible in the world community?

good point. If you can find anything where Obama adresses the points you bring up, please post.

janforgore lets not be a hypocrite, everything takes tons of co2 to happen in this world from the food you eat to to the mattress you sleep on.
Nuclear energy over the last 30 years is 100 times safer than the current nuclear plants we have today. Those nuclear plants are more of a risk and we need to build newer ones and better ones to replace those aging nuclear plants and coal burning plants. It would only take about 150 gen IV nuclear plants in this country to replace almost all the coal burning power plants. Over time the carbon footprint of those plants that get created would be outweighed by the lack of co2 from nuclear power plants and in the long run would be cleaner.
Also Nuclear power is a naturally occurring process. Fifteen natural fission reactors have so far been found in three separate ore deposits at the Oklo mine in Gabon, West Africa. And yet there water is fine, animals live, plants grow and humans live without problems.
We fear nuclear energy so much yet we build dams to create energy. If any dam based power plant in this world was to collapse it would kill a lot of people in a larger radius and do as much damage as a nuclear plant. But no one fears them. Dams also are bad for the environment they throw off the balance of nature and many species of plants and animals die,or have to find new areas to move to. It also causes problems for fish migration. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity#Environme...
As far as coal goes Coal generates 54% of our electricity, and is the single biggest air polluter in the U.S. - enough said.

Japan and France use the latest nuclear reactor technologies almost exclusively and we have not heard of a single problem there. People are living healthy no issues of contamination or any other problems associated with them. We need to let go of these fears and build these plants at least for now.

Until we get better solar panels and other non co2 energy this is the best step we can make going forward.

Lets not spew misinformation about nuclear energy without the facts. Nuclear energy will cost us less money in the long run as we will run out of coal to burn and why wait until the last moments like we are with oil and our $4.00 a gallon of gas. If we start now and replace the coal power plants it will help us all.

Yes, let's not spew without facts. I'll wait for yours.

What has Al Gore said about nuclear, besides that they only come in one size, large? Does he support the construction of new nuclear power plants or not? I try to find articles where he comes out in clear support or condemnation, and I'm not finding them. So where does Gore stand on the issue?

This isn't about Al Gore. This is about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's stance in correlation to the action they will or will not take regarding new nuclear plants being built in this country. However, I do believe he said they should not play a large part in this equation. Obama seems to disagree with that based on his own words in debates and policywise, and Clinton claims to be agnostic about it, although again, that remains to be seen.

if Gore doesnt clearly condemn nuclear, then I would not throw stones at Obama for not doing so either.

Simply stating that you're "agnostic" on the issue is a great way to avoid having to take a stand. It's a cop-out. At least Obama is getting involved with the issue.

Well, Al Gore is not running in this race, Obama and Clinton are and they are both wrong if they support more nuclear plants being built in this country based on its hazards and costs and length of time that we do not have to waste on them. And if Al Gore were running I would state the same if he had the same stance, but I don't believe he would based on his own testimony on Capitol Hill which you yourself made a fantastic film of. Were any of the ten steps he laid out to solve this crisis remotely linked to more nuclear power? No.

So the next time you see information about the effects of nuclear conflagration and wonder if this is the world you really live in, remember those in Washington DC who continue to support the technology that can lead to it...yes, that's getting 'involved' in it alright.

And he did take a stand: Nuclear is not the answer or the panacea to the climate crisis, and he's right. It would appear your exuberance to support and defend Obama above all else is clouding your judgement regarding a source of power that could well lead to us doing ourselves in, which is a helluva lot more important than supporting Obama or anyone else.

This world should be decreasing its nuclear weapons arsenal and pulling back from nuclear power, not condoning more. And environmentalists who care for the future of this planet should be questioning that in my view.

And really... Obama is not coming to him for adivce, both he and Clinton are kissing his a&& to get his endorsement. But on the chance that he is coming to him for advice, I hope he tells him what he stated in the link posted here: Nuclear is not the answer... although, I doubt he would listen as it would seem being for it seems the only way you are allowed to stay in this race.

from Page 328 of "Earth in the Balance"

(after describing typical arguments against nuclear power) "In any event, the proportion of world energy use that could practically be derived from nuclear power is fairly small and is likely to remain so. It is a mistake, therefore, to argue that nuclear power holds the key to solving global warming."

I realize this book was published in 1992, but the problems he cited (human error, costly to build plants, waste disposal) have not gone away so I can't imagine his position has changed much. The alternatives he cites (natural gas, energy produced as a by-product, wind) are some of the solutions I've heard in more recent speeches.

well, Jan, i'm sure you know just as well as I do what Obama's real intentions are. So on that point i'll cease argument. I personally think he's looking for more than just an endorsement because I have faith that not all politicians are egomaniacs. You apparently think they are, but remember, missy, that Gore was once a politician, and he was in it to do the right thing. I think Obama is of the same ilk. You dont believe so, and that's your problem.

the article says Gore does not consider nuclear the "panacea" a word that does not rule out a lesser kind of implicit endorsement. It may not be the cure-all, Gore is saying, but until he comes right out and says "NO NUCLEAR WHATSOEVER - DO NOT VOTE FOR A POLITICIAN WHO PROMOTES NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION," Obama has my vote.

I want to hear him make a public statement, something to the effect of, "Yes, Barack and I do talk frequently, but we vehemently disagree on nuclear."
He has not said this, why do you think?

Whether he wants to be involved or not, HE IS INVOLVED in politics. Why? because people like me trust him, and I'm a voter. now maybe you wont vote. good job. but those of us who will vote want to know the best way to go, and we're looking to our respected elders for answers (as is Obama).

spunkycarol: Thanks for that reference.

Nuclear Power tastes like chicken.

From http://www.physorg.com/news8956.html
Physicists and engineers at Beijing's Tsinghua University have made the first great leap forward in a quarter century, building a new nuclear power facility: a pebble-bed reactor (PBR) – sometimes also known as a Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR). This reactor is small enough to be assembled from mass-produced parts and cheap enough for emerging economies. Its safety is a matter of physics, not operator skill or reinforced concrete. This reactor is meltdown-proof.

from http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/376034...
A typical pebble-bed reactor would function somewhat like a giant gumball machine. The design calls for a core filled with about 360,000 of these fuel pebbles--"kernels" of uranium oxide wrapped in two layers of silicon carbide and one layer of pyrolytic carbon, and embedded in a graphite shell. Each day about 3000 pebbles are removed from the bottom as fuel becomes spent. Fresh pebbles are added to the top, eliminating the need to shut down the reactor for refueling. Helium gas flows through the spaces between the spheres, carrying away the heat of the reacting fuel. This hot gas--which is inert, so a leak wouldn't be radioactive--can then be used to spin a turbine to generate electricity, or serve more exotic uses such as produce hydrogen, refine shale oil or desalinate water.
The pebbles are fireproof and almost impossible to use for weapons production. The spent fuel is easy to transport and store, though there still remains the long-term problem of where to store it. And the design of the nuclear reactor is inherently meltdown-proof. If the fuel gets too hot, it begins absorbing neutrons, shutting down the chain reaction. In 2004, the cooling gas and secondary safety controls were shut off at an experimental pebble-bed reactor in China--and no calamity followed, says MIT professor Andrew Kadak, who witnessed the test.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_plant
The combustion of fossil fuels contributes to acid rain, global warming, and air pollution due to the impurities and chemical composition of the fuel (electricity generation is responsible for 41 percent of US manmade carbon dioxide emissions).Acid rain is caused by the emission of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide into the air.

from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...
While the United States still produces the most carbon dioxide from electricity generation, releasing 2.8 billion tons of CO2each year, China is close to overtaking it, with its 2.7 billion tons. Moreover, China plans to build or expand 199 coal-fired facilities in the next decade, compared with the United States' 83.

Power plants account for 40 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and 25 percent of the world's.

We can go back and forth with different view points on nuclear plants but it can be the way to stop 40% of green house gases until a better option comes along. I am all for alternative energies but why let the co2 emit into the air until another solution comes along. Nuclear energy provides a way to reduce that very quickly as plant are being built cheaper and faster. Maybe you are trading one evil for another but but hasn't the co2 evil been out there long enough. Too much of one thing is bad.