-
-
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 -
McCain pushes destruction of the environment
Sen. John McCain proposed Wednesday to dramatically increase America's commitment to nuclear power, calling for a crash program to build 45 reactors by 2030 and a long-term goal of building 100 such plants across the country.
On the second day of a campaign swing devoted to energy security, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee also committed to spending $2 billion a year for research and development "to make clean coal a reality" in an effort to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil.
McCain has long been a proponent of nuclear power. But his speech here included unabashed support for an energy source and technology that has been suspect in many communities since the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979, the most serious commercial nuclear accident in U.S. history.
No nuclear power plant has been built in America in more than 30 years, and few U.S. companies have invested in the technology to build new plants. The nation draws about 20% of its electricity from 104 working commercial reactors, but many are nearing the end of the operating period allowed by their licenses.
"We will need to recover all the knowledge and skills that have been lost over three stagnant decades in a highly technical field," McCain told a forum at Missouri State University.
Missouri is considered a key battleground in the fall election, and the Arizona senator promised to return often to campaign in coming months. About two dozen antiwar protesters greeted his arrival here, and police escorted one youth from the auditorium after he loudly interrupted the speech.
snip
McCain did not explain how he would dispose of the radioactive waste from the dozens of new reactors he proposed, or how he would deal with the intense political passions the issue generates.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John McCain, just another shill for industries trying to sell us a product as green that is far from it. And the truly frustrating part of all of this is that Barack Obama essentially shares the same viewpoint on nuclear being part of the solution as well as touting "clean coal." Forty five plants by 2030 is a death sentence for this environment. Notice McCain does not mention how long it would take to build these monstrosities or the CO2 and other gases expended in mining the uranium that will poison our land, waterways, and citizens in the process. Just ask Native Americans in New Mexico and Nevada about that.
And he doesn't tell us how he plans to do away with the toxic waste that is radioactive for thousands of years... nor does he tell us the BILLIONS that it would cost to build these monstrosities all while the Arctic and Greenland continue to melt. Nuclear is not the solution. It is simply a way for corporate sponsors of political candidates to keep the status quo and to continue to deflle this planet for profit under the guise of caring about it.
And once these plants were built they would also be mini nuclear bombs just waiting to be hit. No wonder so many agree with McCain in the Congress about this. This is also tied to the nuclear posture review and their attempt to look peaceful while continuing to build nuclear weapons. And it is sad because if the Democratic party actually had a candidate who had courage enough to come out against nuclear and coal they might actually look like a party that wants change. I can't even say I would vote for one over the other on this because they are basically the same. So it is the people who will have to look beyond their political partisanship to see the truth and hold all of their feet to the fire on this. Nuclear and clean coal are scams that need to be outted for what they are, and those politicians touting them regardless of party need to know that people will no longer tolerate business as usual. Sen. John McCain proposed Wednesday to dramatically increase America's commitment to nuclear power, calling for a crash program t... more -
On Cancer's Trail: Navajo Biologist Follows Trail To Uranium
Uranium is not just an emotional issue for Raymond-Whish, but for the tribe as a whole. The legacy of mining the element on the 27,000-square-mile reservation is so deeply and collectively felt that the Navajo Nation banned it altogether in 2005 in the face of globally rising ore prices. During the ’40s and the Cold War period, the U.S. government used yellow cake - or milled and concentrated uranium ore - to build nuclear weapons. The government stopped buying the ore for weapons in 1971, but the commercial nuclear energy market picked up the slack until the early 1980s. Only about a quarter of all U.S. uranium miners were Native American - Laguna, Hopi, Zuni and Ute as well as Navajo. But Native Americans have been disproportionately affected: Their tribal lands are still contaminated, and former miners suffer illnesses and deaths for which many families are still awaiting compensation.
Despite the tribal ban, at least five companies are seeking state permits in New Mexico to mine lands just off the reservation, including on tribal allotment land. In Arizona, 700 individual mining claims were filed in 2005. The prehistoric sea and river beds that run underground from Naturita, Colo., to Grants, N.M., and across to Moab, Utah, still hold an estimated 600 million pounds of low-grade ore. But for every 4 pounds of uranium extracted, 996 pounds of slightly radioactive waste is left over, in piles, in pits and eventually in the soil, arroyos and underground aquifers.
Some Western tailings piles, like those outside of Monticello, Utah, or Grand Junction, Colo., have been cleaned up. But those on tribal lands have fallen through yawning bureaucratic and regulatory gaps. It’s estimated that up to 25 percent of unregulated water sources on the Navajo Reservation exceed federal drinking water standards for uranium. And many families still haul water from these wells, despite warnings by health providers and advocacy groups.
end of excerpt. Uranium is not just an emotional issue for Raymond-Whish, but for the tribe as a whole. The legacy of mining the element on the 27,000... more -
Pelosi, Clinton, Obama Favor More Nuclear Plants
The renewed push for legislation to cut greenhouse gas emissions could falter over an old debate: whether nuclear power should play a role in any federal attack on climate change.Congress, with added impetus from a Supreme Court ruling last week, appears more likely to pass comprehensive energy legislation. But nuclear power sharply divides lawmakers who agree on mandatory caps on carbon dioxide emissions. And it has pitted some on Capitol Hill against their usual allies, environmentalists, who largely oppose any expansion of nuclear power.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Barbara Boxer - Bay Area Democrats with similar political views - are on opposite sides.
Pelosi used to be an ardent foe of nuclear power but now holds a different view. “I think it has to be on the table,” she said.
Boxer, head of the Senate committee that will take the lead in writing global warming legislation, said that turning from fossil fuels to nuclear power was “trading one problem for another.”
Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) - all presidential candidates - support legislation that would cap greenhouse gas emissions and provide incentives to power companies to build more nuclear plants.
Opponents of nuclear power say that because a terrorist attack on a plant could be catastrophic, it makes no sense to build more potential targets. And radioactive waste still has no permanent burial site, they say, despite officials’ three decades of trying to find one.
But attitudes toward nuclear power may be shifting as a consensus emerges that greenhouse gases are causing the world to heat up.
The Supreme Court added its voice, criticizing the Bush administration for not acting to control greenhouse gases.
Max Schulz, a former Energy Department staff member who is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, said the ruling could help “spur the revival of nuclear power.” The renewed push for legislation to cut greenhouse gas emissions could falter over an old debate: whether nuclear power should play a ... more -
Nuclear power is no solution to the climate crisis: exposing the myths
The nuclear industry is hoping that concern over climate change will result in support for nuclear power. However, even solely on the grounds of economic criteria it offers poor value for money in displacing fossil fuel plant. Further, with its high cost, long construction time, high environmental risk and problems resulting from waste management, it is clear that nuclear power does not offer a viable solution to climate change. Rather a mixture of energy efficiency and renewable energy offers a quicker, more realistic and sustainable approach to reducing CO2 emissions. The nuclear industry is hoping that concern over climate change will result in support for nuclear power. However, even solely on the ... more
-
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 -
Outrage over plans to drill uranium ore from the Grand Canyon
A Mayfair mining company has caused uproar with plans to extract uranium from the Grand Canyon – prompting one official to ask how Britons would react “if an American company went to drill at Stonehenge”.
The Grand Canyon is not only one of the world’s most famous natural landmarks, attracting five million visitors a year and offering a home to bald eagles, condors, bighorn sheep and exotic fish. It also happens to contain vast reserves of uranium ore – suddenly in huge demand, thanks to renewed interest in nuclear power as part of the search for “green” fuel.
But while demand for uranium has risen, supply has fallen as mines have closed in Canada and West Africa. As a result, the price has soared – and that has sparked a rush to find new deposits.
The Mayfair company VANE Minerals is at the forefront of this scramble, planning to drill at up to 39 spots on seven sites within the Kaibab National Forest, which borders both the north and south rims of the Grand Canyon, in north-central Arizona. A further thousand claims are thought to be pending from other companies – up from just ten in 2003.
National Park officials, Indian tribal leaders and even some scientists are doing everything they can to stop the exploration, going so far as to call a congressional “field hearing” in Flagstaff, Arizona. “The Grand Canyon is something we depend on for visitors, for tourism, it’s one of the wonders of the world, and here we are as the federal Government allowing the distinct possibility of uranium mining,” Raul Grijalva, a congressman for the state, said.
Environmentalists point out that uranium is both a toxic heavy metal and a source of radiation. As a result it could kill local wildlife and poison the water in the Colorado River Aqueduct, which provides drinking water to Los Angeles and much of southern California, Tribal leaders also complain that they have previously been forced to clean up after bankrupt mining concerns, while radiological assessments at one past exporation site – the Orphan Mine – have shown gamma-radiation at more than 450 times the background level after uranium was brought closer to the surface.
Yet with fears rising over global warming, many argue that the dangers of continuing to burn coal for electricity far outweigh the potential dangers of uranium mining. And while solar, tidal and wind technologies show promise, they are nowhere near as reliable.
more at the link A Mayfair mining company has caused uproar with plans to extract uranium from the Grand Canyon – prompting one official to ask how Bri... more -
Religious Organizations Oppose Nuclear Bomb Plant In New Mexico
Seventy-nine Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, and Protestant groups have joined together to reject administration plans to reactivate the U.S. nuclear weapons infrastructure and build new nuclear bomb plant facilities, the Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers) have announced.
In a formal letter to the Energy Department, religious organizations from across the country called instead for the United States to end new nuclear weapons production and commit to multilateral disarmament.
"We call on our political leaders to show the moral and political courage necessary to bring about a shift in our nations nuclear weapons posture. Today we have a historic opportunity to begin the journey out from under the shadow of nuclear weapons," stressed the religious groups.
The letter was submitted to the Energy Department as part of a public comment period required to assess the environmental impact of Complex Transformation, the proposed plan to rebuild the U.S. nuclear weapons complex. The centerpiece of this proposal is a new nuclear weapons facility at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, located 25 miles northwest of Santa Fe, NM.
The new bomb plant facility would enable the mass production of plutonium pits, the primary detonators in modern nuclear weapons.
The statements signers expressed concern that the new and upgraded facilities would be used in the development of a new generation of nuclear warheads, despite the moral and legal obligations of the United States to reduce its weapons arsenal. Seventy-nine Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, and Protestant groups have joined together to reject administration plans to reactivate the U.S... 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 -
Chernobyl reactor to be buried in steel coffin 22 Years later
KIEV, Ukraine - Twenty-two years after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, work is under way on a colossal new shelter to cover the ruins and deadly radioactive contents of the exploded Soviet-era power plant.
For years, the original iron and concrete shelter that was hastily constructed over the reactor has been leaking radiation, cracking and threatening to collapse. The new one, an arch of steel, would be big enough to contain the Statue of Liberty.
Once completed, Chernobyl will be safe, said Vince Novak, nuclear safety director at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development which manages the $505 million project.
The new shelter is part of a broader $1.4 billion effort financed by international donors that began in 1997 and includes shoring up the current shelter, monitoring radiation and training experts.
The explosion at reactor No. 4 on April 26, 1986 was the world's worst nuclear accident, spewing radiation over a large swath of the former Soviet Union and much of northern Europe. It directly contaminated an area roughly half the size of Italy, displacing hundreds of thousands of people.
In the two months after the disaster, 31 people died of radioactivity, but the final toll is still debated. The U.N. health agency estimates that about 9,300 will eventually die from cancers caused by Chernobyl's radiation. Groups such as Greenpeace insist the toll could be 10 times higher.
The old shelter, called a "sarcophagus," was built in just six months. But intense radiation has weakened it, according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and rain and snow are seeping through cracks.
Officials say a tornado or earthquake could bring down the shelter, releasing clouds of poisonous dust.
The first step, shoring up the sarcophagus, is almost complete, Ukrainian and EBRD officials say.
Later, the 20,000-ton arch — 345 feet tall, 840 feet wide and 490 feet long — will be built next to the old shelter and slid over it on railtracks.
~~~~~~~
But remember, nuclear power is safe according to our Congress. It can't happen here. What a tragedy this is. KIEV, Ukraine - Twenty-two years after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, work is under way on a colossal new shelter to cover the ruins ... more -
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
-
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
-
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 -
Barack Obama's Ties To Nuclear Power
I'm surprised any network even dared to touch this. But it does prove to me that Barack Obama is no more anti-lobbyist than Hillary Clinton is. However, more importantly, I am not convinced that he would not use nukes in a military strike. Even at the debates, he has made it clear that he would not hesitate to attack Pakistan (and like Bush has stated that terrorists are planning to hit us again) and just to remind you, Pakistan has nukes. For me it is hard to look credible for you to say you are against nuclear proliferation yet for nuclear power. And as this wound up, the bill he stated he passed was watered down and never became law. Is this then really change or just more of the same wrapped in a different package? And this issue is important to me and one I think should be important to more people. Nuclear power is not the "clean green" energy source everyone has been led to believe it is, and Obama's ties to lobbyists along with Clinton regarding this make me very wary of just how much they will be for truly eliminating nukes while allowing subsidies for gigantic nuclear power plants to be built. And one other thing, how would the residents of any town know that any "voluntary" policing was working? In the beginning of this Obama stated that the bill regarded notification of what the power plant "believed to be radioactive." That is just an open invitation for them to lie about what they are still emitting and simply saying it isn't radioactive enough to warrant notification. Why are they allowed to leak at all? So as long as they "notify" residents they don't have any other accountability? Again, like the Bush administration we get "voluntary" policing of a potentially deadly hazard to humans, marine life, air, and water. And frankly, that isn't good enough for me. I'm surprised any network even dared to touch this. But it does prove to me that Barack Obama is no more anti-lobbyist than Hilla... more
-
Nuclear Donating Big To Obama and Clinton
And yet, we are to believe they are candidates of change? That they care about the environment? Nuclear energy is not "green." It is an antiquated dangerous form of energy that has seen its day. It is only because of the rise of concern over the climate crisis that certain lobbies have been trying to push it into the green column in order to make a profit from it. And Obama and Clinton are helping them in their quest to do so at the expense of this planet. Subsidies to the nuclear industry could be used to bring innovative and truly visionary alternate energies to the fore that would reduce our dependence on oil in much cleaner and safer ways. This is very discouraging to see and tells me that Obama, who talks about change in his glossy abstract speeches means only changing the person living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It doesn't mean changing the way business is done. Any candidate who truly believes in addressing climate change and in fighting terrorism is not for nuclear power, period. It is bad enough that Republicans push for nuclear energy and antiquated methods proven to be unproductive in progressing us towards the future. I expected better from Democrats, or at least, those who call themselves Democrats. And yet, we are to believe they are candidates of change? That they care about the environment? Nuclear energy is not "green.... more
-
Where Does Stored Nuclear Waste Go
How many other clandestine locations in this country are storing nuclear waste and how many other groundwater supplies are being poisoned by it? And groups continue to lobby that nuclear energy is "green?" It's time for nuclear to go. How many other clandestine locations in this country are storing nuclear waste and how many other groundwater supplies are being poiso... more
-
related topics
Nuclear Kills
Contributors (80)
Nuclear Kills
