-
-
John McCain: The Nuclear Option
Building 45 new nuclear plants in this country is insanity and will doom the waterways of this country and put our national security at risk. For a candidate who also talks about fighting the 'war on terror' as well, how could this thought even be entertained in the world we live in? Nuclear energy is not safe, it is not CO2 free, and I am truly getting tired of John McCain talking about what he really knows nothing about. He was on a nuclear submarine that didn't get blown up so that is how he assessed nuclear power is safe? Does he even understand the process of how the uranium is extracted and the toxic pollution it causes to our waterways and land? Does he understand how the toxic waste causes cancer? Does he understand the radioactivity of the waste? The immense amount of water nuclear uses? (Not good in a country now experiencing droughts, especially in the US Southwest) The cost in dollars and in potential lives?
My one message to him and yes, Obama as well who has now flip flopped to say he too engages nuclear is: STOP LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. The strides being made in solar, wind, and geothermal are here and now. We could take the money their congressional subsidies give out for their nuclear pipedreams and repower this country! I will make a pledge that should John McCain be corronated I will call the White House every day regarding this issue and 'clean coal.' And I will do the same if it is Obama.
It is unconscienable to me that they could ever want to foist this antiquated unsafe energy source on us just to appease backers and the lobbyists who get the subisidies from Washington Dc. The nuclear option must be out of the question. It is antiquated. It is unsafe. It is toxic. It wastes water. It is expensive. It puts our national security at risk, and will take too much time in light of the reports coming from peer reviewed scientists regarding the current state of our world. Why don't these candidates ever pick up a report instead of a poll to craft their policies? Building 45 new nuclear plants in this country is insanity and will doom the waterways of this country and put our national security a... more -
Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth
From the first Presidential debate:
McCain: "And Senator Obama says he's for nuclear, but he's against reprocessing and he's against storing."
Obama: "I -- I just have to correct the record here. I have never said that I object to nuclear waste. What I've said is that we have to store it safely."
From article:
"Separated plutonium, being only weakly radioactive, is easily carried off—whereas the plutonium in spent fuel is mixed with fission products that emit lethal gamma rays. Because of its great radioactivity, spent fuel can be transported only inside casks weighing tens of tons, and its plutonium can only be recovered with great difficulty, typically behind thick shielding using sophisticated, remotely operated equipment. So unseparated plutonium in spent fuel poses a far smaller risk of ending up in the wrong hands." From the first Presidential debate: ... more -
New York state says Indian Point nuclear plant killing too many fish
The huge numbers of fish sucked to their death by the cooling system at the Indian Point nuclear plant prove that the system harms the Hudson River environment, a New York state official has ruled.
The finding by J. Jared Snyder, assistant commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation, is a victory for plant critics who claim that up to 1.2 billion fish and eggs are killed each year as the plant continuously draws in river water for use as a coolant.
"For decades, Indian Point has maintained that its cooling systems have no impact on Hudson River fish," said Robert Goldstein, general counsel to the environmental group Riverkeeper. "At long last, the DEC has pout an end to this fiction."
Snyder said that even the lowest estimate of fish deaths _ 900,000 annually _ "represents excessive fish kills" and establishes an adverse environmental impact.
The ruling, issued this month, means the plant's owner, Entergy Nuclear, may no longer raise the environmental-impact issue as it battles the state's order to build costly towers that recycle cooling water and make big river intakes unnecessary. Entergy had argued that the river's adult fish populations have been stable.
The towers, known as closed-cycle cooling, could cost Entergy more than $1.6 billion.
^^^^^^^
But of course, Entergy will fight building the towers. They don't really care about the environment, just profit. Good ruling. The huge numbers of fish sucked to their death by the cooling system at the Indian Point nuclear plant prove that the system harms the... more -
The looming nuclear nightmare in the backwoods of North Carolina
Looking for weapons of mass destruction? Try the backwoods of North Carolina. The site is easy to find. You don't need infrared telemetry, informants, or a global positioning satellite. Just follow the railroad tracks deep into the heart of the triangle area to the gleaming cooling tower of the Shearon Harris nuclear plant, which rises like a concrete beacon out of the forest.
It may not look like much-a run-of-the-mill nuke, but inside the confines of the steel fence that rings the plant, resides one of the most lethal patches of ground in North America. Shearon Harris is not just a nuclear power-generating station, but a repository for highly radioactive spent fuel rods from two other nuclear plants owned by Progress Energy.
Those railroad tracks? They're for hauling nuclear waste. The spent fuel rods are carted by rail from the Brunswick and Robinson nuclear reactors to Shearon Harris, where they are stored in four densely packed pools, filled with circulating cold water to keep the waste from heating up. The pools are interconnected and enclosed within one building. That building is attached to the reactor itself. Together, they form the largest radioactive waste storage pools in the country.
All this makes Shearon Harris a very inviting target for would-be terrorists. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security has fingered Shearon Harris as one of the most vulnerable terrorist targets in the nation.
Potential atomic terrorists don't have to steal plutonium, take a crash course in physics, or concoct a bomb to manufacture a radiological nightmare scenario in the heart of the Carolinas. All they have to do is penetrate the security fence of a lightly guarded commercial reactor and find a way to ignite the pools of high-level radioactive waste. The easiest method is to disrupt the circulation of the water system that keeps the pools cool.
The resulting fire would be virtually unquenchable. Moreover, because the water system that feeds the waste pools is also connected to the Shearon Harris reactor, a pool fire could also trigger a nuclear meltdown. And so it goes.
An uncontrolled pool fire and meltdown at Shearon Harris would put more than two million residents of this rapidly growing section of North Carolina in extreme peril. A recent study by the Brookhaven Labs, not known to overstate nuclear risks, estimates that a pool fire could cause 140,000 cancers, contaminate thousands of square miles of land, and cause over $500 billion in off-site property damage. Looking for weapons of mass destruction? Try the backwoods of North Carolina. The site is easy to find. You don't need infrared t... more -
News Hour misrepresented Al Gore's speech
During the news summary on Thursday July 17, 2008, Jim Lehrer misrepresented Al Gore’s recommendations for developing cleaner energy sources. Lehrer said this:
“Former Vice President Al Gore challenged the nation today to turn to clean sources of power within ten years. He said the U.S. should switch from oil and gas to generate electricity and to wind, sun, nuclear, and other forms.”
.
Gore never mentioned nuclear. Here’s a portion of Gore’s speech where he recommends clean sources:
“What if we could use fuels that are not expensive, don’t cause pollution and are abundantly available right here at home?
We have such fuels. Scientists have confirmed that enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire world’s energy needs for a full year. Tapping just a small portion of this solar energy could provide all of the electricity America uses.
And enough wind power blows through the Midwest corridor every day to also meet 100 percent of US electricity demand. Geothermal energy, similarly, is capable of providing enormous supplies of electricity for America.
The quickest, cheapest and best way to start using all this renewable energy is in the production of electricity. In fact, we can start right now using solar power, wind power and geothermal power to make electricity for our homes and businesses.”
Gore’s complete speech is available here.
Jim Lehrer grouped wind, solar and nuclear together as “clean sources of power,” Al Gore did not. Gore recommended wind, solar and geothermal. Was it an innocent mistake on Lehrer’s part? I don’t know, but for him to attribute nuclear advocacy to the Nobel Prize winner Al Gore is a nice little piece of salesmanship on behalf of the nuclear industry.
But it’s false advertising.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wow, even on PBS. During the news summary on Thursday July 17, 2008, Jim Lehrer misrepresented Al Gore’s recommendations for developing cleaner energy s... more -
Don't Fall For Nuclear Power
While the presidential hopefuls trade barbs and accuse each other of flip- flopping, they agree with President Bush on their enthusiastic support for nuclear power.
Sen. John McCain has called for 100 new nuclear power plants. Sen. Barack Obama, in a July 2007 Democratic debate, answered a pro-nuclear power audience member, "I actually think that we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix."
Among Obama's top contributors are executives of Exelon Corp., a leading nuclear power operator in the nation. Just last week, Exelon released a new plan called "Exelon 2020: A Low-Carbon Roadmap." The nuclear power industry sees global warming as a golden opportunity to sell its insanely expensive and dangerous power plants.
But nuclear power is not a solution to climate change — rather, it causes problems. Amory Lovins is the co-founder and chief scientist of Rocky Mountain Institute in Colorado. He makes simple, powerful points against nuclear: "The nuclear revival that we often hear about is not actually happening. It is a very carefully fabricated illusion ... there are no buyers. Wall Street is not putting a penny of private capital into the industry, despite 100-plus percent subsidies." He adds: "Basically, we can have as many nuclear plants as Congress can force the taxpayers to pay for. But you won't get any in a market economy."
snip
The presidential hopefuls are wrong on nuclear power. Wind, solar and microgeneration (generating electricity and heat at the same time, in smaller plants), on the other hand, are taking off globally, gaining billions of dollars in private investments. Lovins summarizes: "One of the big reasons we have an oil problem and a climate problem today is we spent our money on the wrong stuff. If we had spent it on efficiency and renewables, those problems would've gone away, and we would've made trillions of dollars' profit on the deal because it's so much cheaper to save energy than to supply it." The answer is blowing in the wind. While the presidential hopefuls trade barbs and accuse each other of flip- flopping, they agree with President Bush on their enthusias... more -
US Diplomat in Iran nuke talks
A senior US diplomat will join nuclear talks with Iran this weekend, marking a notable shift of policy by Washington towards engagement with Tehran.
William Burns, an undersecretary of state and number three in the US state department, will attend a meeting in Geneva on Saturday involving the EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, and Tehran's main nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili.
The decision, confirmed anonymously by US officials, appears to mark a significant – if perhaps temporary - softening of stance by Washington, which has always previously insisted Iran must end all nuclear work before talks can begin.
However, Burns will not negotiate directly with Iran or hold separate meetings with Jalili. "This is a one-time deal," a state department official told the Washington Post, stressing that the main US position remained unchanged.
The US is part of a six-nation effort, also including Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia, to persuade Iran to end uranium enrichment activities. Tehran insists its nuclear work is aimed only at civil power generation but Washington and the other nations fear the intention is to build atomic weapons.
Iran and the US cut official ties in 1980 following the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran. American officials have refused until now even to take part in preliminary nuclear talks, although the two nations have held separate and limited discussions over security in Iraq.
Earlier this week the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said Solana and Jalili were due to discuss "the framework of talks and timetable of talks" in an attempt to break the deadlock. He also hinted at possible US involvement.
Despite facing a series of UN-imposed sanctions, Iran has shown few signs of wanting a deal over its nuclear activities. Last week the Iranian military testfired ground- and sea-launched missiles in the Gulf for two consecutive days, prompting fresh US warnings about possible military action.
Last month the US and its five fellow nations involved in the talks offered Iran technological incentives if it suspended uranium enrichment.
Solana is reportedly ready to propose once more a so-called "freeze for freeze" agreement, a limited period during which Iran would create no more nuclear material and the six nations would not lobby for new sanctions.
The possibility of a confrontation with Iran is proving politically divisive in both the US and Europe.
Critics of Washington's sabre rattling towards Tehran point to the US National Intelligence Estimate report late last year that concluded "with high confidence" that Iran ended its nuclear weapons programme in 2003 and was some way from being able to build a weapon now. A senior US diplomat will join nuclear talks with Iran this weekend, marking a notable shift of policy by Washington towards engagemen... more -
U.S. Halts Uranium Mining Near Grand Canyon
Uranium mining near the rim of the Grand Canyon in Arizona was halted for three years by a 20-2 vote Wednesday in a US House of Representatives committee.
A recent surge in mining claims within five miles of Grand Canyon National Park sparked the action. The number of claims close to the park increased to more than 1,100 by January 2008 from only 10 in January 2003, according to government figures.
Almost all those claims are to mine uranium. Uranium prices have increased in recent years as demand has spiked to feed an increasing number of nuclear power plants across the globe, as well as potential new US plants.
"This emergency action will help prevent uranium mining from harming the Grand Canyon and polluting drinking water for millions," said Dusty Horwitt, public lands analyst at Environmental Working Group, which spearheaded the effort to block mining.
Horwitt said mining could pollute the Colorado River, source of drinking water for millions throughout the Southwest, including the Los Angeles, Phoenix and Las Vegas areas.
The world consumes about 180 million pounds (50 million to 55 million pounds in the United States) of raw uranium a year. (Reporting by Bernard Woodall; Editing by Braden Reddall)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Good news... for now. Let's just hope the EPA doesn't allow a coal plant to be built there now. Uranium mining near the rim of the Grand Canyon in Arizona was halted for three years by a 20-2 vote Wednesday in a US House of Repres... more -
UN watchdog warns against Iran attack
The U.N. nuclear watchdog chief said a military strike on Iran would turn the Middle East into a fireball and prompt Tehran to launch a crash course to build nuclear weapons.Russia also warned against military threats on Friday, after The New York Times quoted U.S. officials as saying Israel had carried out a large military exercise, apparently a rehearsal for a potential bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities."A military strike, in my opinion, would be worse than anything," International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director general Mohamad ElBaradei told Al Arabiya television in an interview aired on Frida"It would turn the region into a fireball."
He said any attack would only make the Islamic Republic more determined in its confrontation with the West over its nuclear programme."If you do a military strike, it will mean that Iran, if it is not already making nuclear weapons, will launch a crash course to build nuclear weapons with the blessing of all Iranians, even those in the West.""If a military strike is carried out against Iran at this time ... it would make me unable to continue my work," he added.Russia's U.N. envoy said threatening Iran with military action could undermine newfound momentum in the drive by six world powers to resolve the standoff with Tehran.European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana went to Tehran last week for talks on the matter.Diplomats say that on behalf of major powers, he offered Iran preliminary talks on its nuclear work and a freeze on moves to harsher sanctions if it limited its uranium enrichment to current levels for six weeks.The United States accuses Iran of seeking to develop nuclear bombs. It has not ruled out an attack on the Islamic Republic, but says it is focusing on diplomatic pressure. Iran says its nuclear programme is peaceful but has refused to suspend uranium enrichment despite three rounds of U.N. sanctions imposed since 2006. It has also turned down offers of economic benefits to suspend its uranium enrichment, which it says is to produce fuel for electricity generation.A U.S. official said this stance could lead to a new round of sanctions against Iran.ElBaradei said sanctions alone would not be effective in persuading Iran to halt nuclear enrichment, saying that more international dialogue was required. The U.N. nuclear watchdog chief said a military strike on Iran would turn the Middle East into a fireball and prompt Tehran to launch ... more -
Is Nuclear Power Viable?
Nuclear power was the energy of Tomorrowland — in the 1950s it was going to make electricity too cheap to meter — until it came to a standstill over the past couple decades. It's now poised to make a dramatic comeback. At least, that's what many politicians and the media say. As the Senate this week debated the Warner-Lieberman carbon cap-and-trade bill, which would put a federal limit on greenhouse gas emissions, many doubtful senators said they wouldn't vote for the measure unless massive subsidies for nuclear were included. (The bill was shelved.) Even some veteran greens who were once dead set against atomic power, like Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, now see nukes as the only way to save civilization from climate change. And last month Wired magazine urged environmentalists to "Go Nuclear," claiming, "there's no question that nuclear power is the most climate-friendly industrial-scale energy source."
That's debatable, to say the least. There's no question that a nuclear plant, once it's up and running, produces comparatively little carbon dioxide — a British government report last year found that a nuclear plant emits just 2% to 6% of the CO2 per kilowatt-hour as natural gas, the cleanest fossil fuel — but nuclear energy still seems like the power of yesterday. After a burst of construction between the 1950s and late 1970s, a new nuclear power plant hasn't come on line in the U.S. since 1996, and some nations like Germany are looking to phase out existing atomic plants. That reverse is chiefly due to safety concerns — the lingering Chernobyl fears of nuclear meltdown, or the fact that we still have yet to devise a long-term method for the disposal of atomic waste.
But to Amory Lovins — a veteran energy expert and chairman of the Rocky Mountain Institute — there's a much better green reason to be against nuclear power: economics. Lovins, an environmentalist who is unusually comfortable with numbers, argues in a report released last week that a massive new push for nuclear power doesn't make dollars or cents. In his study, titled "The Nuclear Illusion," he points out that while the red-hot renewable industry — including wind and solar — last year attracted $71 billion in private investment, the nuclear industry attracted nothing. "Wall Street has spoken — nuclear power isn't worth it," he says.
More nuclear subsidies, which many on Capitol Hill are pushing for, won't do the trick either. Lovins notes that the U.S. nuclear industry has received $100 billion in government subsidies over the past half-century, and that federal subsidies now worth up to $13 billion a plant — roughly how much it now costs to build one — still haven't encouraged private industry to back the atomic revival. Nuclear power was the energy of Tomorrowland — in the 1950s it was going to make electricity too cheap to meter — until it came to a s... more -
The World's Hardest Working Shaman
Western Shoshone leader, Corbin Harney talks about his prophetic conversation with the water
-
Nuclear energy heats up U.S. Presidential race
John McCain embraces it. Barack Obama wants to address its flaws. Hillary Clinton is cautious but not opposed.
Nuclear power -- controversial in the United States and throughout much of the world -- is on the agenda of all three US presidential candidates as they seek to diversify the country's energy mix and reduce dependence on foreign oil.
Interviews with top policy advisers to the three White House hopefuls reveal a varied approach to the technology that some observers see as a necessary answer to fighting climate change and others view as expensive and dangerous.
McCain, a Republican senator from Arizona who has wrapped up his party's nomination, is by far the most enthusiastic about the carbon-free fuel source, regularly calling for more nuclear power plants at campaign stops throughout the nation.
"I believe we are not going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and become energy independent ... unless we use nuclear power and use it in great abundance," he said in North Carolina on Monday.
McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said nuclear power faced an "uneven playing field" from years of political opposition.
"Sen. McCain would eliminate the political obstacles that hinder nuclear power, allow it to compete more effectively, and likely increase its share of the US energy portfolio," he said.
Nuclear energy accounts for about 20 percent of US electricity supply, a figure that could rise if regulations on carbon dioxide emissions are imposed, making greenhouse gas emission-free nuclear plants more attractive.
There are 104 operating nuclear reactors nationwide.
Obama, an Illinois senator and the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, shares McCain's belief that nuclear energy is part of the solution to climate change.
But he opposes new federal subsidies and would work to address concerns about safety and waste storage, senior adviser Jason Grumet said.
"Because of the fact that climate change is a species-challenging dilemma, we don't have the luxury to do anything but try to solve those real problems," associated with nuclear technology, he said.
Clinton, a New York senator, prefers using renewable fuels to fight climate change because of nuclear energy's risks.
"Hillary has real concerns about nuclear power because of the issues around safety, waste disposal and proliferation," policy director Neera Tandem said.
"She opposes new subsidies for nuclear power, but would continue research focused on lowering costs and improving safety." John McCain embraces it. Barack Obama wants to address its flaws. Hillary Clinton is cautious but not opposed. ... more -
What nuclear renaissance?
If you listen to the rhetoric, nuclear power is back. Smashing atoms will replace burning carbon-based coal, gas and oil. In the face of a disaster movie-like future of runaway climate change--bringing drought, floods, famine and social breakdown--carbon-free nukes are cast as the deus ex machina to save us at the last minute.
Even a few greens support nuclear power--most famously James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory. In the popular press, discussion of nuclear energy is dominated by its boosters, thanks in part to sophisticated industry PR.
In an effort to jump-start a "nuclear renaissance," the Bush Administration has pushed one package of subsidies after another. For the past two years a program of federal loan guarantees has sat waiting for utilities to build nukes. Last year's appropriations bill set the total amount on offer at $18.5 billion. And now the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill is gaining momentum and will likely accrue amendments that will offer yet more money.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) expects up to thirty applications to be filed to build atomic plants; five or six of those proposals are moving through the complicated multi-stage process. But no new atomic power stations have been fully licensed or have broken ground. And two newly proposed projects have just been shelved.
The fact is, nuclear power has not recovered from the crisis that hit it three decades ago with the reactor fire at Browns Ferry, Alabama, in 1975 and the meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979. Then came what seemed to be the coup de grâce: Chernobyl in 1986. The last nuclear power plant ordered by a US utility, the TVA's Watts Bar 1, began construction in 1973 and took twenty-three years to complete. Nuclear power has been in steady decline worldwide since 1984, with almost as many plants canceled as completed since then.
All of which raises the question: why is the much-storied "nuclear renaissance" so slow to get rolling? Who is holding up the show? In a nutshell, blame Warren Buffett and the banks--they won't put up the cash.
"Wall street doesn't like nuclear power," says Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. The fundamental fact is that nuclear power is too expensive and risky to attract the necessary commercial investors. Even with vast government subsidies, it is difficult or almost impossible to get proper financing and insurance. The massive federal subsidies on offer will cover up to 80 percent of construction costs of several nuclear power plants in addition to generous production tax credits, as well as risk insurance. But consider this: the average two-reactor nuclear power plant is estimated to cost $10 billion to $18 billion to build. That's before cost overruns, and no US nuclear power plant has ever been delivered on time or on budget.
much more at the link. If you listen to the rhetoric, nuclear power is back. Smashing atoms will replace burning carbon-based coal, gas and oil. In the face ... more -
Don't Dismiss Nuclear Risks
With the recent settlement between the state of Maryland and Constellation Energy Group, the power company is once again championing Calvert Cliffs as the site of a new nuclear power plant. This is not a cause for celebration.
On July 13, Constellation submitted the first new application to build a nuclear power plant in the U.S. since Three Mile Island. But the company threatened to go elsewhere if Maryland lawmakers re-established state regulatory control on new power plants.
Fear of a growing energy shortage is leading to calls for more nuclear power plants. What many people are forgetting is that nuclear power is an expensive and risky investment, and there would be little interest in such projects without federal subsidies and incentives, including liability insurance, risk insurance for delays, production tax credits and loan guarantees totaling billions of dollars. In Florida, two proposed new reactors may cost $24 billion, with ratepayers expected to pay during construction. With wind power already more economical than nuclear power, and solar power soon to be, one critic predicts nuclear power plants will be “economically obsolete before they are built.”
Nuclear power cannot be brought online on the scale and time frame needed to replace coal. In 2007, 12 of 32 nuclear reactors under construction worldwide had been so for more than 20 years. Moody’s estimated that no more than two new nuclear power plants will come online by 2015. In addition to delays in finding suitable sites, dealing with community objections and getting permits, there is now a three-year backup in obtaining the core reactor vessel, which is forged by a single company in Japan.
There is no solution to the problem of nuclear waste, currently totaling 50,000 metric tons. Despite 20 years of study and a $9 billion expense, the repository site at Yucca Mountain is not close to having a permit. Were it to open, it would be full by 2012.
Pro-nuclear advocates tend to ignore the fact that nuclear power is the only energy source that carries the risk of radioactive contamination. This unique safety concern is exacerbated by a degraded safety culture shared by plant owners and by a Nuclear Regulatory Commission that took too long to correct a dangerous erosion problem, which allowed container vessels to leak. The NRC has failed to resolve design flaws in sump pumps at Calvert Cliffs and other plants at risk of clogging in an accident. Moreover, the NRC’s inspector general has criticized the agency for failing to document criteria for plant recertification.
end of excerpt.
By Dr. Gwen DuBois With the recent settlement between the state of Maryland and Constellation Energy Group, the power company is once again championing C... more -
What changes have you seen that inspire you?
Earth Day is traditionally a time when we focus on the environment...
-
Amory Lovins: Congressional testimony on nuclear power
Energy expert Amory Lovins, Chair & Chief Scientist for the Rocky Mountain Institute testifies before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming about the danger of relying on nuclear energy as a solution to global warming. Energy expert Amory Lovins, Chair & Chief Scientist for the Rocky Mountain Institute testifies before the Select Committee on Ener... more
-
John Edwards On Nuclear Power
Since John Edwards led the way in the beginning of this campaign on poverty, healthcare, Iraq, and the economy with Obama and Clinton following him, maybe he can lead on this as well. Sure miss him in this race but am also glad he is not involved in the rhetoric of it all. Since John Edwards led the way in the beginning of this campaign on poverty, healthcare, Iraq, and the economy with Obama and Clinton ... more
-
Greenpeace co-founder supports nuclear energy
Patrick Moore is a critic of the environmental movement—an unlikely one at that. He was one of the cofounders of Greenpeace, and sailed into the Aleutian Islands on the organization's inaugural mission in 1971, to protest U.S. nuclear tests taking place there. After leading the group for 15 years he left abruptly, and, in a controversial reversal, has become an outspoken advocate of some of the environmental movement's most detested causes, chief among them nuclear energy. NEWSWEEK's Fareed Zakaria spoke to Moore about his sparring with the green movement, and why he thinks nuclear power is the energy of the future. Patrick Moore is a critic of the environmental movement—an unlikely one at that. He was one of the cofounders of Greenpeace, and saile... more
-
The Externalities Of Nuclear Power
The nuclear power industry has latched on to global warming as an argument for its renaissance. Although even industry proponents acknowledge that the problem of disposing of spent nuclear fuel remains unsolved, the industry routinely assumes this problem will be solved in the future. Unfortunately, this is the same assumption made by nuclear energy proponents at the beginning of the nuclear industry fifty years ago. We haven’t solved the nuclear waste problem in the past half century, and there is no reason to think we will be more likely to do so in the next one. Like the shipwrecked economist in the old joke, the nuclear industry continues to postulate that we should “assume we have a can opener” for the nuclear waste problem.[1]
While the impacts of global warming are described as “intergenerational,” the impacts of the nuclear waste cycle are better described as inter-civilizational.[2] Nuclear fuel wastes remain hazardous for hundreds of thousands to as much as a million years.[3] By contrast, recorded human history goes back only about 5,000 years, and human civilization is only about 10,000 years old. Globally, none of the generators of nuclear fuel waste have successfully implemented any permanent disposal option for nuclear waste, leaving this externality of nuclear energy production as a problem for future generations, or, more likely, for future civilizations. Put simply, the nuclear industry, with government complicity, has transferred and deferred the most expensive part of the cost of the nuclear fuel cycle to future generations and civilizations unknown.
Nor are the environmental and public health costs of nuclear waste the only ones that nuclear energy generation has externalized. Nuclear generation also poses a risk externality — the economic and social harms that the public has assumed in the event of a radiation release, for which the generating industry has limited liability. This risk externality arises not only from the risk of accidental reactor meltdown and release of radioactivity, but also from the proliferation and terrorism risks that are inseparable from any scheme of nuclear energy production and waste disposal.
These twin externalities, waste and risk, make any nuclear renaissance an unsatisfactory substitute for fossil fuel power generation. As horrendous as the impacts of global warming will be — millions of people displaced and dead — the likely long-term impacts of increased nuclear energy production are comparable, and longer lasting.
I~~~~~~~~
There is much more information in this very well written and comprehensive report on nuclear power. It is something we cannot once again rush into simply to appease those interests looking to use the climate crisis as a way to profit. The nuclear power industry has latched on to global warming as an argument for its renaissance. Although even industry proponents ackn... more -
Nuclear Energy Lobby In U.S. Using Climate Change for Profit
After a hiatus of nearly three decades, nuclear energy is booming. Seventeen power companies in the U.S. are making plans to build more than 30 nuclear plants.
One important factor in the resurgence: new federal and state laws that help utilities pay for nuclear plants that, if completed, would be among the most expensive projects ever built in the country.
One state where nuclear power is making a comeback is Florida. At a meeting last week in Tallahassee, Florida's Public Service Commission voted to approve the state's first new nuclear plants in decades.
Commission member Nathan Skop hailed the decision. "Simply put, nuclear power is a strategic investment for the state of Florida and our national security—to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and to protect our environment," he said. After a hiatus of nearly three decades, nuclear energy is booming. Seventeen power companies in the U.S. are making plans to build mor... more
-
related topics
No Nukes
Contributors (149)
No Nukes
