Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiHalf-Trillion Dollars for Nukes!
With Wall Street unwilling to finance new nuclear plants, U.S. Senators Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and John Warner of Virginia have cooked up a scheme to provide $544 billion -- yes, with a "b" -- in subsidies for new nuclear power plant development.
Their move will be debated on the floor of the Senate Tuesday, June 3.
A Lieberman aide describes the plan as "the most historic incentive for nuclear in the history of the United States."
The Lieberman-Warner scheme is cloaked in a climate change bill -- the claim being that nuclear power plants don't emit greenhouse gases and thus don't contribute to global warming. However, the overall "nuclear cycle" -- which includes mining, milling, fuel enrichment and fabrication, and reprocessing -- has significant greenhouse gas emissions that do contribute to global warming.
Moreover, nuclear power is enormously dangerous. Accidents like the Chernobyl explosion of 1986 stand to kill and leave many people with cancer. Nuclear plants routinely emit life-threatening radioactivity. Safeguarding nuclear waste for millions of years is an insoluble problem.
Nevertheless, there have long been powerful forces in government and the nuclear industry promoting atomic energy.
Wall Street is uneasy -- rightfully regarding nuclear power as terribly risky. Six of the nation's largest investment banks including CitiGroup, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley last year told the U.S. Department of Energy that the risks "make lenders unwilling...to extend long-term credit."
Enter Senators Lieberman and Warner.
Safe energy advocates are outraged by their scheme. Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth, says: "It's time to focus on real global warming solutions like solar, wind and energy efficiency, not to further fatten the moribund nuclear calf."
John Passacantando, executive director of Greenpeace USA, says: "After 50 years of unresolved safety and waste disposal issues, it perplexes many Americans why Congress would support massive subsidies for the nuclear industry. Nuclear power is a dirty and dangerous distraction from real global warming solutions."
Kevin Kamps of Beyond Nuclear says: "If the nuclear power industry attains this $500 billion-plus in federal taxpayer subsidies, it would effectively double the subsidies this industry has already enjoyed over the course of the past 50 years which has made it the single most subsidized industry in the energy sector."
"Taxpayers should not be asked to continue bankrolling a nuclear power industry that has never been financially or environmentally viable," says Sandra Schubert, director of government affairs for the Environmental Working Group. And this "especially" must not happen "in times of tight budgets." Instead, government "should do everything in its power to rapidly pursue clean energy solutions like solar and wind."
Sneakily, the $544 billion for nuclear power is not specifically listed in the Lieberman-Warner measure. It is "covert" legislative sleight-of-hand, says Blackwelder, with the nuclear subsidy contained in a "vaguely-entitled category for zero and low carbon energy technologies."
"Why are they hiding it?" asks Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen. "Because they know that the environmental movement in this country is serious about addressing climate change and will not tolerate a reversion to dangerous, dirty and expensive nuclear energy."
"It's so deceitful," says Kay Drey of Beyond Nuclear, who is also incensed that the media have virtually made no mention of "this would-be half-trillion dollar nuclear bail-out."
The Nuclear Information and Resource Service has organized a campaign for people to e-mail or write or telephone their senators to stop the Lieberman-Warner effort.
But the move has major support in the Senate -- especially from John McCain, the presumptive Republican candidate for president.
Among the subsidies nuclear power already gets is $20 billion approved by Congress and President Bush only last year. And there's a law Congress passed, called the Price-Anderson Act, that limits liability to $10 billion for a catastrophic accident -- although, according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, this is a small fraction of what a nuclear plant disaster could cause in property damage, not to mention birth defects, cancers and deaths.
Turning to nuclear power to deal with climate change is like trying to treat heroin addiction with crack. Lieberman and Warner would have us pay for hundreds of billions of dollars for atomic crack.
It's not too late to contact your senators and urge them to vote no on the Lieberman-Warner scheme.
Karl Grossman is a professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College at Old Westbury, author of several books on nuclear technology and host of the nationally syndicated TV program Enviro Close-Up.
55 Comments so far
Show AllThanks Karl!
I believe I heard you on Thom Hartman today, search the article down and wrote this piece based on it.
What could half a trillion dollars do in solar power?
I agree Bill it's the oil. I understand the rulers of Iran are actually the clergy. _____ which may be worse.
KEM,
Iran temporarily suspended its enrichment program but I believe the capability is being expanded. Whether they are actually enriching uranium or just building the capability, I don't know. Uranium enrichment is your classic dual use technology.
IMHO, the biggest beef against Iran is that it is sitting on almost as much oil as Iraq. It is not under our control yet.
The Iranian people, when they elected their current president, were looking for an honest man. Their hierarchy was corrupt. They got an honest man but he is an honest nut job. He is every bit as nuts as Dick Cheney. He is almost as scary as Dick Cheney. He does not, however, has as much power as Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney controls the strings on the talking dummy.
Bill
~Billy~, I understand Iran stopped that program in 2003. Is that correct? If so, what's the beef?
If not so, there is a beef. Of course, where is the beef of Isreal having nuclear bombs? Those are already prepared to use. Just load em up and sling em. Is that what is termed a double standard by any chance?
Hi ~ASHAMED~ That is a great and important link. She is quite a gal, a Cindy Sheehan type.
We don't have any nuclear plants operating here anymore with that type of construction design. We do have 104 nuclear plants in the States and every one of them is a potential danger and ecological hazard waiting to have a failure of some type, perhps a major disaster. We have already come very close more than once.
There has never been anything man-made that has not failed or will eventually fail if it stays in operation long enough. A brand new nuclear plant could have a disasterous failure and wipe out an area of land the size of California or New York, kill millions and it caused by human error, equipment failure, a massive earthquake or a class five tornado, etc.
Likely?___ No. ___ Possible? ____ Yes indeed, it has already been well proven it is very possible and we should not gamble with that horrrifc possibility. Then there is the deadly man made nuclear, radio-acitve by-products which must be safely stored for centuries. We have not been able to safely store them for even 60 years.
I know you are also joking there ~Billy~.
You do need a good whupping though to help you get your mind set straight.
~"What we have here, is a failure to communicate."~
Glenn,
George Bush's beef with the Iranians is over an enrichment plant, not a nuclear power plant. It is being built with Pakistani technology.
Bill
Glenn,
It is obvious that you did not read the link to the Torness report. It speaks clearly to mining, milling and processing of the uranium fuel. You may dispute their data but the analysis is there.
The "more objective" report you are referring to is Leuwellin-Storm which does claim that nuclear approaches the same CO2 output as natural gas. Let us look at L-S assumptions in their analysis.
L-S assumes a nuclear plant life of 25 years. All of the plants in this country were originally licensed for 40 years and about half of them have now been extended to 60 years.
L-S assumes 25Gigawattshours/ton uranium burn up. The industry standard is now 55Gigawattshours/ton and they are working on 60.
L-S assumes all high concentration ore is exhausted. I believe they use a concentration of 0.01% uranium in the ore body. Cigar Lake mine in Canada has an average assay of 24% uranium and is expected to produce for 30 years.
L-S assumes that all enrichment is coal fired and uses the world war II diffusion enrichment technology. The enrichment industry is rapidly abandoning the gaseous diffusion technology. Centrifuges are the technology of choice and they use about 5% of the energy of a diffusion plant. The French diffusion plant was powered with nuclear energy, not coal. Only the US uses coal fired diffusion and USEC is currently building a centrifuge plant to replace it.
L-S is not objective science. It is a rather shoddily done piece of anti-nuclear propaganda.
If you don't like looking at an industry study, here is a link to a PhD thesis at University of Wisconsin: http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/pdf/fdm1181.pdf
Kem, I'm not just bad-I'm evil to the bone.
Bill
Bill is a bad man.
Bill,
Do you really think those are objective sources? That last one is a sickening industry propaganda site with a picture of a family frolicking in a field of flowers. Come on! Re-read the article. More then half a trillion dollars is about to leave our hands for theirs.
By the way those figures are crap. They don't take into account any of the mining, construction, enrichment -by and far the filthiest part, or the decommissioning, or construction of storage or trucking to storage. More objective sources say that nuclear is about a third as dirty as coal - and that still assumes all goes well.
Don't forget, we have to go to war with Iran because Ford sold the Shah a nuclear plant. Bush is selling Saudi Arabia one even as he tells us about the one in Iran. The plants here make America absurdly vulnerable. That may cause them to next tell us we can no longer have civil liberties, but thanks for the half trillion dollars chumps.
We are being inundated with industry hype - you provide links to it.
THEY ARE RIPPING US OFF!
THEY ARE LYING TO US
It is depressing to see so many people falling for it.
thaddeus,
If I understand your question, you want to know the comparative life cycle CO2 emissions of nuclear versus other generating technologies. Here is a link to a study by British Energy of their Torness nuclear plant: http://www.british-energy.co.uk/opendocument.php?did=341
The gist of the document says:
Nuclear (specifically Torness) releases approximately 5 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour.
For comparison,
Coal is cited at 900 grams/kwh
Natural gas is 400 grams/kwh
Wind generation is usually cited as slightly lower than nuclear. PV solar is normally cited as slightly higher.
Of course, neither wind, solar or nuclear emit CO2 during operations but plant construction and dismantling are included as well as, for nuclear, fuel extraction, processing and disposition.
If you are interested in other citations, you can go to www.nei.org and click through to the environmental page.
Bill
no nukes is good nukes
The article mentions CO2 costs in producing nuclear fuel but fails to mention specifics. One of the comments mentions that the nuclear fuel cycle produces 200 less times CO2; I would be interested in seeing the citation from a scientific source on that "bidleo". Until then I Remain highly Skeptical. I've tried to find numbers to bolster my own arguments below and I see we're all in the same boat: somehow they just ain't out there. I see I'll be on this paper chase for several days and possibly weeks. Look for a report back in about two to three months. This is so typical of issues of major concern where public policy suddenly needs to be shaped; the American consumer is like a mushroom-kept in the dark and fed manure.
Some other thoughts:
1. This whole issue boils down to a basic question of taxation and who pays for the damage done by all major methods of electricity production. These costs stem from:
A. Health risks and medical conditions resulting from coal fired plant emissions-See the American Lung Association's website on this for statements that are I believe backed by facts.
http://www.lungusa.org/atf/cf/%7B7A8D42C2-FCCA-4604-8ADE-7F5D5E762256%7D/key_air.pdf
B. Environmental costs are in the uncharted area because we have yet to develop accounting methods that assign a cost to a lost resource like the top half of a mountain that is blown away in the search for coal or water pollution from hot water emissions next to nuclear power plants. A concerned person's opinion about a lost mountain top is not just about concern for a pretty view; it may be concern for lost habitat, lost creeks and rivers, lost sections of the ecosystem that are an instrumental key in the planet's system of making clean air, water and soil available so we may all have a place to live, eat and sleep.
2. Solutions and alternatives to the status quo.
A. Cut back on usage and upgrade all appliances-the common sense conservation ideas. And this is not just for consumers; major enterprises need to cut back. Ever drive by a megaplaza mall at 1 am and see the place lit up like the center of the Galaxy?
B. Modern methods of solar power, where households can produce 80% of their own electricity , are readily available.
C. Mass transit figures in here; again, think of the megaplaza, office site this time, surrounded by 20 acres of heat sinking asphalt while inside each office suite the workers wear sweaters and jackets to keep warm in the 72 degree air conditioning. Hint; trees and shrubbery are a natural form of air conditioning.
More later perhaps
Ciou!
"It looks [to] me like a repetition of the oil conundrum we find ourselves in now…"
Not a 'repetition', but a contrived-continuation of 'scarcity' enabling the Elite...
Look-hard at/for 'who' owns and controls profits from the made-wasteful/made-polluting/made-inefficient Oil&Energy-Industries, then look for 'who' profits-most from the same re: 'nuclear' [for military-or-energy 'purposes'].
Its only the People, of any sovereign-nation, who really 'own' their natural-resources (but, you'll find FEW of those People ever actually 'profiting from them', even in the US or West).
Nearly ALL the Profits to be had, by those who exploit all-Resources re: Oil, Electrical-production, Nuclear/military-'anything', etc., are controlled/taken by the EXACT SAME Cabal of since-'Enlightenment' Elites, who also [and not 'coincidentally'!] control most-Economies and 'free-Markets', and nearly-all of the world's Fiat-issuing Central-Banks [the rare-exceptions being Cuba's/Iran's/Libya's...], and food-production/distribution, and nearly everything-else.
These Elite have amassed the planet's real-Wealth and have "driven our bus" since Industrialism and Capitalism -- since 'they' instituted the fall of Monarchic-Rule (often replacing such with phony-'democracies'). We know them only as the Rothschild's/Rockefeller's/Morgan's and their other "prominent-names and Proxy's" (and prominent-'corporate-Holdings', Internationally -- or, as the 'Bilderberger's', or 'Shadow Governments', G-8, or 'secret-services', or by their "thousand other Names"). They 'own'/control 98% of all known Uranium-mining, and of-course own the only corporations any nation can 'trust' to build/operate-Nukes -- or to refine/handle/transport these deadly-fuels -- and are HAPPY to kill all the impoverished and made-sick unfortunates who pull this radioactive-poison out of their own-Soils, and easily/subsequently 'dispose of them' (unlike the impossible to dispose-of, and leftover-filth, generated after their obscene-Profiteering).
This is an ongoing Theft and Waste of Resources and Potential, usually by foreign-controlled Corporations, and most-generally at the expense of those People who 'own' their natural-resources -- which adds the Insult of killing-them-off to enable that Theft.
Much-more abundant Oil, also, is a 'similar-situation' -- that only rarely 'profits' those People who are losing their often-Sole Resources, while made to suffer by 'providing it' for these same-'Elites' (and their deluded/enabling lick-spittles in the West, who happily Consume-them as their 'right').
It matters not-a-whit if you support Dem's or Repugs, neo-Libs or neo-Cons, 'Fundies' or 'environmentalists' -- indirectly, any of those 'choices' further-supports those self-same Elite...
Coal is a piss-poor way to provide electricity (as is monster-Grids and the choice of AC over locally-produced DC -- ask Tesla). And petrol-diesel OR food-based-diesels are equally poor-choices for our heavier-engines (ask Mr. Diesel -- however, he and Tesla died at the hands of those-Elites). And similarly, of-course, 'gasolines' were the LEAST desirable fuels for our light-engines [LPG or NatGas being-best, and easily/cheaply 'refined' from local-gases OR any 'sweet/sour'-Oil]. Coal plants, nuke-testing, HAARP, and choice of 'gasolines'/petrol-diesels (which, unlike LPG/NatGas/bio-diesel, emit huge-volumes of nitrates/sulfurs/methane/etc., as does industrial-farming and 'meat-production') -- these are causing whatever 'Warming' exists -- not the relatively-harmless CO2 that is focused-on as a Red-Herring and 'false taxation-Cause' (and which all plant-life is dependent-on and benefits from any higher-levels of).
These Elite [neither true-Atheists nor Zionists, actually -- but "G_d's unto themselves"!] primarily 'use' only-Mythos to fool-us into 'giving them our World'.
Those of Faith, manipulated by abuse of their ancient-myths and false-flagged Provocations effective for Hate, rather than the 'Love' that All of their Prophets taught.
Those Secular and Greedy, manipulated by fleeting-reward of 'Fiat-wealth' -- represented and paid with worthless paper-'currencies' printed upon privately-owned presses.
Those Humanistic/'technological' (and who therefore should certainly "know better", btw!), manipulated by fears of 'warming' and CO2 and 'Holocausts', and wars/'scarcity' (which we're given in Abundance, anyway).
All the manipulations of these 'Elite' are Transparent and Known, and easily traced-back to them. They are therefore 'vulnerable'.
It is only the 'bad-sides' of Ourselves that we must Fight, in order to disarm those who so Abuse and Manipulate the vast-Majority -- and who march us now into the final-phases of their 'New World Order' nightmare [which was a Mad-Plan, of itself -- conceived-of in the 1700's, and responsible for most of the Destruction, grief, Chaos, and 'dehumanization' and overt-Greed since then].
Seek Truth...seek Justice...seek Ethos/Logos to offset such Mythos [both are always-there, for the Taking -- even if 'inconvenient' or Costly].
Or, Submit -- directly, or by Apathy ... and then see what is "left to you, and Yours."
Criminal administration's doing it again...
Revolution justified. Rebellion emminent.
I usually try not to argue against opinions but PLEASE, if you do not like the support for nuclear power in this legislation, write your congressman and just tell them to strike nuclear power from eligibility for Section 4402 of the bill.
This legislation will install cap and trade on CO2. This legislation is very important to the future of the planet.
PLEASE do NOT tell your representatives to kill the bill. A vote against this bill is a vote for more coal generation.
Bill
Anyone who is in favor of nuclear power, please look at the fact that there is enough accessible uranium to last about 40 to 50 years and then help me understand how one can consider building new extremely expensive reactors a viable alternative. It looks ot me like a repetition of the oil conundrum we find ourselves in now...only with a waste product that lasts 100,000 years. Nuclear is not sustainable. Nuclear is not a domestic source of energy. Nuclear is not the answer to the climate change issue primarily because it is too slow. The reactors currently operating have a limited life expectancy now being pushed beyond original design specs. Building new ones will take many years and huge expenditures of Co2.
CFC 114 released at the United States Enrichment corporation is a far greater heat trapper ozone destroyer than Co2. All uranium must be enriched unless it is processed from weapons grade before it enters the reactors.
Many current workers are nearing retirement age.
The parts for new reactors are no longer built in the US and must be imported.
Public opinion is still a concern... as it should be given the radiological risks, the risks of proliferation, dirty bombs, evacuation plans, and lax monitoring etc.
Even Warren Buffet's Mid-American cancelled a new nuke in Idaho due to the bad risk of investment money in January 08.
Enjoy your day.
I just heard a recent lecture broadcast on NPR in the Bay area(Arts in Lecture series, hosted by Linda Hunt?) featuring Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute. Take a minute to look into who he is and what he knows. Amazing, positive stuff on the horizon. Nukes are not one, they are tres tres tres passez.
He made very cogent arguements that nukes are the most expensive carbon-neutral/low carbon energy source: that means there are four alternatives that are more cost-effective. That doesn't even get into the issues of private sector unwillingness to fund, inherent risk, lack of a storage solution, and proliferation/security issues. He noted that only four "enviro/scientist/"greenies" are for nuke...and noted how much spin the nuke indiustry has made from those four. The implication is most others are adamantly against.
No nukes is good nukes: there are far better options out there, w/o the downside risk.
lets not forget how much water all of the thermal technologies use (coal, gas, nuke) in generation: clean water to live will be our next crisis.
Energy non use is the cheapest date (conservation) then solar and wind step us in terms of low carbon, no water, and sustainable.
DO call you senators and DEMAND they vote against this ridiculous bill. Then call Obama and Clinton and McCain and tell them to wake up and get informed and get off the dole of these unscrupulous power-monger greedy phuc-faces!
Billy y 4: Thanks for doing a bit of homework for us. An article on Counterpunch also construes the bill as a giveaway to the nuclear industry, but it also dwells on past nuclear problems. 100 pages, huh?
Here is an interesting endorsement in favor of Lieberman-Warner from the right column of CD: http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0529-02.htm
Bill
Former Nader Voter,
So does Clinton. She is just maintaining a very cagey low profile position on nuclear at this time.
The clearly antinuclear contenders are no longer in the race (unless you consider Nader's 3rd party candidacy as something more than posturing).
Bill
Fossil fuels cost less until you factor in remediation costs from global warming.
Bill, the lowest cost should prevail but we should include full costs which admittedly is a hard sell in the US as it equates to socialism. So our ideologies determine the costs. In the socialist view renewables and conservation have lowest costs, and in the capitalist view fossil/nuke energy have lowest costs. If we're honest and logical about the technical side of energy then the problem is purely political and revealed to be a major front in the class war, the people versus the elites, because the elites want to use energy to control the people, and the people want to use energy to emancipate themselves from elite control.
Both Obama and McCain like nuke power.
Some choice.
Go, Ralph!
.
I don't want U.S. Taxpayers' Dollars funding the private sector Nuclear Power Plants........unless the U.S. Government owns them...and controls the safety and security.
No tax dollars for The Investing Profit Generation sector of our economy.
The Banks and Wall Street want the U.S. Taxpayers to underwrite their Wall Street Investments in Energy.
Senators Lieberman and Warner have grown rich and powerful shilling for the Wall Street Bankers and Washington Lobbyists.......It's time to boot them out.
.
Rtdrury,
Glad to see your continued even handed, broad minded approach.
The lowest cost way to generate electricity in most parts of the country is with coal.
The only reason the utilities are using any renewables or considering nuclear is either government mandates, government subsidies or fear of government taxes on carbon. Is this appropriate or should the lowest cost generation prevail?
Bill
"After 50 years of unresolved safety and waste disposal issues, it perplexes many Americans why Congress would support massive subsidies for the nuclear industry. Nuclear power is a dirty and dangerous distraction from real global warming solutions."
Why be perplexed? Just look to see who will make the most money from this, and there's your answer. Don't forget, the modern definition of "democracy" is "Plutocracy".
There is no legitimate reason for the federal government to be involved in electric power generation except to pick up the slack when states fail to regulate the industry to maximize the public benefits, which include maximizing the value of the service, preventing groups from pushing costs on each other, limiting pressures on the environment, all accomplished by generally holding the various actors to strict ethical standards. When we master the ethical side of the problem, the technical side quickly optimizes itself. For example, we quickly expose nuke power as the evil racket that it is and we bury it forever making way for more valuable methods. There is nothing new to this type of restriction on government policy. It represents the pinnacle of human potential and has been enacted and celebrated throughout history despite the many failed attempts to suppress it. Check the various progressive charters for details, e.g. Earth Charter, Green Party platform, etc. Anyone who fails to embrace these in action should absolutely be denied the individual's exchange/association. Do pro-nukies think we're going to forget eight years of such skullduggery as the relentless threats by madmen at the top of the evil empire hierarchy to detonate nuke devices to subject the world to totalitarian control from Washington? They can think again. So you see we have the rock solid policy foundation. We also have a plan to starve the capitalist beast small enough to be drowned in a bathtub so that we may implement the policy. It's only a matter of time till the capitalist beast faces its doom.
Kem,
I did a back of the envelope calculation a couple of weeks ago. Ignoring lead times and production capacities, if we wanted to replace US coal generated electricity with nuclear today it would take approximately $1 Trillion. It would be more expensive with renewables.
That $1 Trillion would still leave intact the 20% that is generated with natural gas.
Bill
It seems as if you are correct Bill. I have not read the bill, so you are more informed on that issue than I am.
Burning coal has to be banned too ~NANNIE~. ____ And soon.
With half a trillion or less, we could have more clean energy than we could possibly use, create millions of good paying jobs and shut down every coal fired plant.
Once that is accomplished, shut down every nuclear plant. It could be done, and we'd better do it if we wish to leave a planet for our next generation to live on. Mars is months distant and it's not exactly a paradise.
Kem,
It distresses me that the anti-nuclear propagandists are so fixated on the possibilty that nuclear might get a subsidy that they would kill an incredibly important piece of legislation. That is a profoundly anti-environmental position.
As I understand the legislation, it is a level playing field between nuclear and true renewables on this production credit thing. If it would save this legislation, I would gladly give up the nuclear support in it.
I don't think the chances of this bill or any carbon constraints before the next congress are very good. Big coal is too powerful and George Bush, as stupid as he is, can write well enough to veto legislation.
Bill
Why worry Billy they are going to pass it one way or another, they don't listen to us. They listen to GE.
I have just re-read this legislation (Senate bill 2191).
Section 4402 has a procedure for giving production support to new electrical generation which is zero or low carbon emission. This would, as written, include solar, wind, tidal, and other renewables as well as nuclear. There is a bidding process to recieve what amounts to production credits. If I understand it correctly, all of the eligible generators (new low CO2) would bid against one another. Nuclear generators would be bidding against solar generators and so forth.
Another section gives support to carbon sequestration development.
The most important part of this legislation is a cap and trade system for CO2. I have not read the details of the system (The bill is about 100 pages long). We vitally need either a cap and trade system or a carbon tax.
I personally support nuclear generation but if you don't want the legislation to support nuclear power, you could ask your senator to either specifically exclude nuclear from section 4402 or to limit the bidding in section 4402 to generators which are less than 1Gigawatt (which would effectively exclude all of the new nukes).
Please DO NOT tell your senator to vote against the bill. Tell him to change it if you think that is the right thing to do. We vitally need CO2 constraints. Voting against this legislation is a vote for expanded coal burning.
Bill
KEM...
thank you for the web site it was fasinating.
I knew it was bad but this certainly proves what a disaster nuclear power is.
It is sucidal to continue down the nuclear highway. It must be banned and contained for all humanity's sake.
.
bbr-001 You have been reading the propaganda. Go read the facts. If it's safe why do we have to insure it? Why did Gen. Anthony Zinni tell us that our nation is essentially indefensible because of this vulnerability? Why do the scientists who aren't paid to lie, say that the new designs basically just afford us a few more hours to flee? Why does the nuclear Regulatory Agency estimate the cost of an accident at around half a trillion dollars? (and thats probably low).
Go look at those photos of the area around Chernobyl. That could be you soon, and if you are near a plant, get yourself a gieger counter, because they are not going to tell you about leaked radiation. There is simply too much money at stake to be worried about your health.
If you know anyone in Iraq or Afghanistan they are working to dispose of the 340,000 tons of depleted uranium, by shooting it out the barrels of their guns. This will kill thousands of them, and they aren't telling us about this either. It is causing birth defects and many cancers, go to gulfwarvets.com and click on DU.
Then ask yourself if you really want to give these bastards half a trillion dollars to (not) solve a problem they normally deny the existence of. There are ways to really solve it, but not if we give away all our future money to welfare capitalists.
A pocket veto and he isn't even the Prez yet!
I have downloaded a copy of the legislation so that I can read it in detail. I skimmed it earlier. I consider it my responsibility when I write my congressman and senators to understand what I am saying.
Here is an interesting quote from the Washington Post:
"In a press conference late Wednesday afternoon, McCain said he did not support the bill sponsored by two of his closest allies, Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) because it doesn't offer enough aid to the nuclear industry, and he would not come to the floor to vote on it."
Bill
The government should not be giving tax dollars to ANY corporation. They won't look after the people, but they're more than happy to give billions of dollars to private companies. It's sick.
When and if the nuclear industry cleans up the mess it has already made, then would be the time to discuss expansion of this industry. Don't hold your breath. The extent of the ongoing damage is only now becoming known, e.g., the poison water table in the Hanford area. And the efforts to clean it up are pitiful. Furthermore (as stated in article) there is no safe place to store nuclear waste, some of it has a half life of over 20,000 years.
I humbly disagree. Nuclear power can be safe and is getting safer. $544 b sounds about right. Spent wisely it could pay for up to 100 reactors and which would be the equivlent of maybe several hundred coal fired plants (mybe most of the coal fired plants in the US).
It is expensive. My utility, PECO, has several nukes. I remember buying a fridge in Philly, and the clerk saw me reading the energy use sticker. He said double the highest estimate on the sticker and say thank you to PECO. At least the summer brownouts stopped.
There should be no reason to "cloak" the money. If Lieberman is afraid the public will catch on, he needs to show some leadership and explain why he wants nuclear power. Why would his own aid describe the bill as a great incentive for nukes if they are hiding it?
Nuclear power will probably expand and evolve and go a long way towards sustainable CO2 emissions world wide. Don't walk away in disgust if you lose on this issue. Learn about nuclear power, master the tech talk, and help make sure its done right.
and you'll notice they rarely build nuclear power plants near the rich
after all who wants to live near a nuclear power plant?
quite literaly "there goes the neighbourhood"
still as long a folk stage protests about wind farms proposed near neighbourhoods
we'll never be in a position to radiate anything more than wind
Here is a truly wonderful link that shows us all, just how good nuclear can be. After it opens fully there are dozens of color photos.
The author refuses to take any money for her documentary, she only wishes everyone to see what nuclear power is capable of.
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html
Why are they insisting on building such soft targets for Al-Qaeda and its fellow travelers? At least now, they would have to bring their own fissile material with them. These fools want to set it up for them. Treason anyone?
This isn't about "nuclear power" or the environment. It is about nuclear weapons. They are playing the environment card to try to get the centrifuges going with public support. Tactical nukes will be constructed and shipped to Israel. Iran's nuclear program is peaceful. US nuclear programs have never been peaceful and I don't believe they are now, especially with Liebermann behind it.
"the claim being that nuclear power plants don't emit greenhouse gases and thus don't contribute to global warming. However, the overall "nuclear cycle" – which includes mining, milling, fuel enrichment and fabrication, and reprocessing — has significant greenhouse gas emissions that do contribute to global warming"
Karl, you are right about the safety problems with nuclear power, but the above statement is highly misleading - and you know it. The cradle-to-grave carbon footprint of nuclear power, which you allude to, is 200 times less than coal. So while nuclear power may not be a good option for other reasons, it is a highly effective strategy to deal with climate change.
Lieberman's stance is no nuclear power for Iran but nuclear power for Connecticut. I smell hypocrisy here don't you?
"Electricity costs less today you know,
than it did, 25 years ago..." Remember when they sang that tune?
This is just another scam to put billions in the pockets of big business-socialism for the rich & capitalism for the poor. Whether nuclear power is safe, and it isn't, distracts from the main reason for this, that a bunch of corporations stand to earn a ton of money, & put wads of it in the pockets of worthless legislators like Lieberman & Warner.
A NYTimes editorial today endorsed the Lieberman/Warner bill.
...but nowhere hear enough money to:
rebuild the Gulf Coast three years after Katrina-Rita tore it up.
care for desiabled veterans comiong back from Iraq.
repair and strengthen the crumbling infrastructure.
provide government-run, single-payer, healthcare for all citizens.
adaquately test medicines and consumer products for saftey.
etc., etc.
.
TODAY...TODAY...TODAY...
Nader Says No to Nuclear Power
What: Presidential candidate Ralph Nader holds Press conference outside offices of Nuclear Energy Institute to say no to nuclear power
When: Thursday, May 29, 2008, 12 noon
Where: Nuclear Energy Institute, 1776 I Street, N.W. Washington, D.C.
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
Phone or e-mail your two senators NOW and tell them to vote AGAINST the Leiberman-Warner Bill (S. 2191). If you don't know your senators' numbers the Capitol switchboard 202-224-3121 can give you that information.
Ever since their participation in Dick Cheney's 2001 clandestine energy policy sessions, the nuke industry has ramped up a very successful propaganda campaign to convince lawmakers and voters that nuclear power is the ONLY solution to global warming and a host of other problems.
If this bill passes, clean energy production development investment will dry up fast. No other form of power production will be able to compete with this huge subsidy
for nukes.
"Turning to nuclear power to deal with climate change is like trying to treat heroin addiction with crack".
What a great line, it really describes the truth of this hideous PR campaign to shove the snout of the nuclear industry deeper into our wallets.
If it's so damn safe, let them find their own insurance. REPEAL PRICE ANDERSON! We shouldn't be insuring these things.
If it's so cheap, let them use their own money.
This whole thing is fraud. It would be ten years before any of these plants would be on line, and as soon as one melts down, costing millions of lives, billions if not trillions of dollars, citizens would demand that they all be shut down.
Say no to this deceit and fraud.
Way to go Joe-De-Mentum! Just what you'd expect from this shrivelled ghoul and his senile pal Warner....Where the hell are those guys in the white coats with the net?
Just visited the site (kiddofspeed) from one of the earlier posts. That is incredibly chilling. I was against nuclear power before I saw that and now I think ALL of them, around the world should be shut down. If any later posters missed it, here is the link again, and thanks to Kem Patrick for providing it in the first place.
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html