EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
Why is That $50 Billion Radioactive Antique Toilet Still in the Stimulus Bill?
The infamous $50 billion nuke power loan guarantee package meant to use your money to build new nuke reactors has gone missing from saturation media coverage of Obama's Stimulus Package. But it's still in the Senate version of the bill, it could be voted on this week, and it could kill us all.
Like that $30,000 antique toilet that disappeared into the banking bailout, the corporate media carries not a word about this gargantuan handout to the dying reactor industry. All the hype about a "nuclear renaissance" will come to naught without this massive taxpayer handout. But if it goes through, the landscape could be pock marked with lethal new nukes.
We have days---maybe hours---to stop it. While aid programs to the states, for education and the truly needy are slashed, this gargantuan boondoggle is poised to sail through with virtually no public knowledge.
The loan guarantee package was slipped into the Senate version of the Stimulus Bill by Senator Robert Bennet (R-UT) who proceeded to vote against the overall package. It is not currently in the House version.
As the two bills are reconciled, armies of radioactive lobbyists will be marching through the Halls of Congress. They know Wall Street will never pay for new nukes, so that leaves...you and me!
The estimated price of building new reactors has nearly tripled since the beginning of 2007. It is virtually certain to at least double again before any new nuke could come on line, which could not happen in less than a decade.
Reactors built from the 1960s to now came on line an average of 200% and more over budget. A French-based reactor construction project in Finland has soared more than $2 billion over budget and is more than two years behind schedule. The Government Accountability Project warns that at least half those who build new reactors are likely to plunge into bankruptcy. To this day the industry cannot get private insurance to cover the full potential liability of a reactor catastrophe.
But Bennett's maneuver, supported by Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) would divert billions away from renewables and efficiency, and into these failed terror targets.
Calls and letters are desperately needed to the Congressional leadership---NOW!--- to flush this horrific boondoggle out of the stimulus package. With White House pressure mounting to get it passed this week, every minute counts.
Numerous major national environmental organizations offer websites from which to sign on and send letters, including www.nirs.org , www.beyondnuclear.org and www.nukefree.org. The Congressional phone line is 202-224-3121 or (toll free) 800-962-3524.
Do not hesitate: the melt-down you prevent could otherwise kill you; the money re-directed to green alternatives could save our planet...and our economy.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
46 Comments so far
Show AllTell you what nwfisher. Let's put a nuclear reactor in the back of your yard and see how you like it. In the meantime, no need to drag the rest of us into your shit, fisher boy !
A nuclear power plant won't fit in my backyard.
But there is one, sitting next to a filthy coal burning power plants about 30 miles down the Ohio River from my home. I'll take it over the coal burning power plant any day. The coal plants spew, CO2, soot, mercury, arsenic, and, yes, radioactive materials into the air. They filled a huge open reservoir ringed with dead trees and it's waters a bizarre blue color (now it has been drained) and completlely lifeless, with a gypsum material containing the pollutants they do remove.
Huge barge tows come and go feeding it's 3-4 million ton a year coal appetitite. The coal comes from longwall mines up river which cause subsidence, lower, the water table, and dry up streams that formerly supported trout. Workers still occasionally die in coal mines, thankfully in much smaller numbers, and some will still get black lung.
The Nuclear plant? It doesn't even have a smokestack - It just sits and emits a bit of a hum. It exposes even it's workers to such tiny radioactive materials that the only time it's alarms went off was when miniscule and insignificant amounts of material from Chernobyl, having blown 17,000 miles from the west set some detectors off.
And no, nothing like Chernobyl could happen with any kind or electric power reactor used in the west.
---USAn---
A reasoned defense of nuclear power, yet no mention is evident of the waste generated by that power plant, those rods that emanate radioactivity for ten thousand years or so. I do believe that nuclear is a part of the power equation, as soon as we get such power without the necessity to bury something in a salt mine in Utah.....
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
I agree that we need the 4th generation reactors whose wastes have half-lives measured in decades and that are also capable of burning much of the current long-lived wastes from the earlier generation plants.
PDJ 2:23 They do vent and when they do it's cancer time!
NitWit Fisher,
Old reactors are the fault of environmental regulations? More concentrated pollution for future generations to deal with? Financing by Wall Street Gouging, Extortion, Theft, and Graft, Inc.? The cost of extracting the few remaining uranium deposits, the costs of a centralized distribution network, and building materials have nothing to do with the time and costs to build a nuclear reactor? People who propose alternatives because they want non-polluting energy capture and distribution that doesn't cost billions of dollars that goes into the coffers of mega-corporations are to blame for the cost of reactors? I dare you to prove a single word of your crack-derived drivel.
That's an adorable excuse.
It's the litigation, NOT the liability, that sends the cost of nuclear plants through the roof.
That would be hilarious if it weren't so utterly stupid an excuse.
Why don't you show us all the proof that Wall Street is willing and ready to pony up the cash? They weren't 35+ years ago with the first wave of nuclear, and they sure as hell aren't now, either.
Ever notice how the Obama apologists ignore these threads?
Yeah even "Joe Hope" probably doesn't want to die in a nuclear accident. Or more likely he's probably too busy cheering on Netanyahu to worry about mere trifles like the deaths of his fellow Americans.
The problem is both parties are really one and the same. Their underlying policies are similar, if not the same. The need for a viable third party in this country is urgently needed.
No kidding!
Horrified 12:55 --- Or laws stripping corporations of "personhood", lobbying rights,tax loopholes, and campaign contribution abilities.
Your cynicism and presuppositions say more about...well, I can't say it, the censor looms. Actually you characterization of "Joe Hope" fits your hero Obama who is a tool of AIPAC. Get you facts right otherwise, galactic stupidity rules. Ive been to Gaza working for the Palestinians not undercutting them like Obama and Clinton.
Dude I am against Joe Hope and Israel, epic fail in reading comprehension.
You'd think that the Senate would use their power to raise a filibuster on that one. And there's a majority of Democrats to strip that shit out. I guess "centrists" believe in compromising the health and safety of our nation with nuclear shit. At this point, both parties make Al Quaida look "nice" !
The costs of building the reactor facilities are astronomical not just because of the licensing process, but also because they are extremely complex machines. The safety redundancy requirements - which anyone downwind would appreciate - are daunting. Reactor facilities aside, there are still thousands of retired uranium miners and processors dying from the cancers caused by the ore they dug up. Combine that with the risks involved with mine tailings, processing accidents, and handling risks, and the costs rise exponentially. Nuclear power has never, and will never, be the "clean, safe, and renewable" energy source it's been hyped up to be. No government has ever found a safe way to handle, store, and dispose of the waste products generated by reactors. All in all, a bad deal for everyone.
Do we really need more Depleted Uranium factories? I think not.
And Mr. wasserman is not a progressive. On Democracy now, when informed of the French nationalzed electric power system, and it's 80% reliaance on nuclear power. Mr. Waserman proceeded to condemn it as "National-Socialistic", electric power and called it anti-free market.
---USAn---
harvey wasserman:
just for the record: national socialism is the opposite of democratic socialism
national socialism refers to fascism, which is the essence of atomic power. it is centralized, corporate, undemocratic and ultimately dictatorial.
nuke power & democracy ultimately cannot co-exist.
if there were a true "adam smith" marketplace in energy, all nuke plants would shut immediately, in large part because nobody will run one without liability limits imposed by the government.
adam smith warned, in the very beginning of WEALTH OF NATIONS, that monpolies would be the death of the market, and that's truer nowhere than with nuke power.
those so-called libertarians and conservatives who preach the free market always miss that part about Smith's gospel. in this day and age, they are really corporate fascists. thus right wingers support nuke power, a total creature of national socialism, while ranting against DEMOCRATIC socialism, which is a whole other system....
no nukes!!! for solartopia....harveyw
Harvey good to see you read here and post. You are a refreshing voice for progressive change here in the midwest.
I may not agree with your position but I applaud an author who sticks around to answer his critics.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
The Glue That Holds Chaos Together
Atomic power is dictatorial? LOL!
I don't need any damn atoms ordering me around.
Your solar cells are made out of what?
How costly is it to produce solar cells?
Do harvesting the materials used for solar cells cause environmental damage?
What kind of industrialization would we need (in terms of scale) to produce inexpensive solar cells that every citizen can afford?
How about nano-paint, can that be mass-produced, cheaply, with a limited risk to the environment?
I think the answer lies in better nukes that use high temperature boron fusion, algae/hydrogen production systems, nano-paint, glow in the dark paint, geo-thermal, hydroelectric, wind power, and solar power will all be needed...along with methane composting power.
Of course, you are focused on plugging solar cell manufacturing, and that will only cover part of our energy problem.
I wonder what Steven Weinberg's thoughts may be, concerning the political tendencies of atoms.
Rock on, Harvey!
Not all biofuels are bad. Ever considered switchgrass?
And your negative assertions against solar and wind are dead wrong.
I would also like to add that nuclear consumes up more fossil fuels and water. My state of Oklahoma could shut down the oil reserves and your nuclear power plant would be unable to sustain much longer. Not so with solar and wind.
Loved your book, "HW's History of the United States", especially the first sentence:
"The Civil War made a few businessmen very rich."
Endless, endless bickering, anger, even hatred. We're like a nation of teenagers. Rather than examine our own inability to come together over anything, we instead look at what our leaders do wrong. There's always something, as long as we keep electing these troublesome human beings
Were we united, they couldn't screw us around. But any leader observing America or reading these threads knows already divided, already conquered. We can't get along enough to accomplish anything. While we're arguing with each other, our rather directionless elected officials are both doing as they please and doing as they hope we want, no guidance from us. Great. Different leader, more of the same divided nation. Even on supposedly liberal sites, we don't need conservatives to show up to display our divisions.
Simplistic thinking, devotion to ideological pet thoughts rather than to rebuilding our nation, maintaining our distance from each other, and judging others strictly on the basis of their difference from us: the USA. Not much different from the days when we called certain skin colors certain awful names. Now we managed to elect one of that previously greatly abhorred skin color, but no matter. There's always plenty to be bothered at each other over, and to use up our time over, rather than actually doing anything.
Sometimes there are real disagreements though thunder, are we supposed to suppress those in the name of unity? I for one think building more nukes is a stupid idea when we have wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, etc energy available. Other good hearted p[people like "physics citizen" here disagree. That is a real disagreement that no rhetoric about unity will paper over.
Billy 5:54 -------- Billy take a deep breath, relax and think. Who in their right mind would want to build something that requires an evacuation plan? Billy research the truely green energys and you will learn it is simple to power the nation with them. And do not reply with the lame the wind doesn't always blow and the sun does not always shine nonsense.
Also the Navajo and the Aboriginals do not want their lands descrated by poisonous uranium mines.
Hello Bill,
Since you seem such a supporter of nuclear power I suggest that it be built in your home town. If not there then in the center of the pentagon as a second alternative since you and the military and some in the federal government are proponents of using the atom as a power source to heat water. I live where an evacuation plan for the Shoreham was not only a necessary but how could I evacuate in the event of an emergency? Check the available methods of moving all the people off Long Island in a timely fashion. I live with the problems of Indian Point which has an appalling safety record and a troop of girl or boy scouts could easily overwhelm the protection provided by Entergy or whoever is in control of the facility.
Ken
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will guard the guardians, watch the watchers, etc?)
The thing about antique toilets is that they don't flush anywhere. The waste just stays in the toilet until it wafts or leaks out.
"$50 Billion Radioactive Antique Toilet". Yes, that's a good name.
The Glue That Holds Chaos Together
There are pros and cons to both sides of this issue, but I would like some hard figures on the nuclear power plants through-out our country. I have relatives who live right by the Fermi power plant in Monroe, Michigan, and the power plant has been functioning and saving money for quite a few years, while the surrounding water ways and land has been cleaned up and some of it has been declared a wetlands reserve under the leadership of Congressman John Dingle. I drive right by this plant twice a week, and I have not heard of any mishaps recently.
Another thing that people like to harp on is the dangers of uranium, which is dangerous, but are you aware that all molten magma contains uranium?
Where I would agree with you is that power companies should not be allowed to export liability, and that there are several forms of alternative energy that would be feasible, but they all carry risks. One more time, ALL FORMS OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRY RISKS.
Wind energy carries the risk of killing avion wildlife, while causing lower property values in the surrounding areas. Solar power requires that solar cells are manufactured...which requires a great deal of industrialization just to create the cells, and over use of such cells could affect climate. Bio-fuel is already proving to be a threat to food resources in countries like Mexico, while algae/hydrogen systems create waste.
If the funding were implemented to the purpose of perfecting and manufacturing Integral Fast fusion reactors, that fuse boron and hydrogen atoms, then we could have clean fusion energy...as the waste product is helium.
Rather than ridicule the budget spending on nuclear power, you should ask what, exactly, the money is going towards, and then get some hard facts on the nuclear power industry in the entire nation. If you can show that every nuclear power plant is a failure, then you have a valid point for eliminating the entire practice of using fusion reactors.
Next time; try for more facts and less bluster.
Not all biofuels are bad. Ever considered switchgrass?
And your negative assertions against solar and wind are dead wrong.
I would also like to add that nuclear consumes up more fossil fuels and water. My state of Oklahoma could shut down the oil reserves and your nuclear power plant would be unable to sustain much longer. Not so with solar and wind.
I was under the impression that solar panels take more energy to manufacture than they give out in their lifetime, making them effectively batteries. Is this no longer the case?
Unless government subsidizes nuclear the way they're doing fossil fuels, nuclear is a total waste.
nuclear power is only a passing zone toward future; call it escape from ecologically painted mafia interwar
edweg
Hey Bill:
If you want to take your game up a notch, try matching wits and facts with this guy. He isn't knee-jerk anti nuke, even though the title of this one sounds it, and he is technically sound. Also he runs a great GW blog, climate progress.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/11/nuclear-loan-guarantee-program-stimulus/#more-4859
interesting, and i'm sure that mr wasserman didn't miss the point, but the obit for Cuy Chichester from the clamshell alliance is posted on the same day that this issue is here to dust off over again. apparently dissagreement is cyclical like the rest of nature
Where is our current generation equivalent of a Woodward or Bernstein, the guys with guts that gave us the story of Watergate? I bet if you trace the nuke give away back to its sources, you would find nuke lobbyists and money changing hands to legislators to sponsor this legislation. In fact, that is already most likely a done deal and we are really talking about veteran incumbent Republicans being in the nuke industry's hip pocket, being "owned" by billionaire corporations.
Ah! Republicans - the best politicians money can buy.
And if it were to be eliminated inorder to get a vote for the stimulus package to pass, it would probably be snuck right back onto the bill after the vote but before the bill made it on the president's desk for a signature.
Well - they don't call it "politics" for nothing. Poly = Latin for "many" and Ticks = blood sucking parasites.
LOL!! Your just figured out that GREEN energy was the radioactive glow from all the waste these new porky pig reactors are going to puke out. Add this to clean coal and your starting to see what the New Demo. alt. energy program is.