Most Popular This Week
- Not to Worry, Rape Victims Who Want An Abortion: We Won't Charge You With Felony Tampering With Evidence, Just Your Doctor
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- The Right of the People, Even At the Airport
- To End Extreme Poverty, Let’s Try Ending Extreme Wealth
- The Poison We Never Talk About in School
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- Don’t Put a Fork in It: On the Perils of Genetically Engineered Salmon
- Don’t Buy Lies About Social Security
- UN Report: Israel Must Immediately Dismantle Settlements or Face ICC
- Domestic Fair Trade: A Plea to UNFI and Whole Foods for Justice
Popular content
Today's Top News
Will an "Emergency" Military Vote Tomorrow Fund More Nukes?
As oil continues to gush into the Gulf of Mexico, a shocking vote tomorrow (Thursday, May 27) may rush $9 billion worth of taxpayer guarantees into building three new nuclear power plants---two of them on that already tortured Gulf of Mexico.
Environmental groups (NIRS.org, PSR.org) are posting alerts and circulating at least one letter asking House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-WI) to stop the handout. The public is being urged to contact Obey and other Representatives on the committee and in the House (202-225-3121). Shrouded in murky haste, the vote is currently scheduled for 5pm.
The bailout may be attached to an emergency appropriations bill meant to provide funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. How that "emergency" relates to building new nuclear power plants remains a mystery.
Insider accounts say the bill may provide $9 billion in loan guarantees for two reactors to be built at the site of the South Texas Nuclear Plant, currently home to two aging reactors. Funding may also go to a new reactor proposed for Calvert Cliffs, Maryland, where two two-decade-old reactors are also licensed.
The move may be "balanced" with $9 billion earmarked for "green energy" proposals. But safe energy proponents dismiss that move as window dressing.
The frantic attempt to slip the loan guarantees into a military appropriations vote with minimal debate comes at an astonishing time for the energy industry. As with the Deepwater Horizon, which set off the current Gulf catastrophe, there are no reliable technologies capable of controlling a runaway reactor meltdown.
Nuclear proponents assure the public that the possibility of such an event is remote, but the public has been told similar things about deepwater drilling. And as with BP, owner-operators of the proposed new nuclear plants would enjoy strict limitations on their financial liability in case of a major catastrophe.
The South Texas Project has long been fraught with bitter controversy. The city of San Antonio was set to be a major investor, but pulled out amidst a raucous citizen-utility confrontation over soaring construction cost projections. The true nature of those costs continues to be immersed in angry recrimination and uncertainty. By all accounts the financial estimates for building the new reactors have soared by billions of dollars over the past few years and will continue to do so. How the Department of Energy would underwrite a project whose price tag remains a moving target would undoubtedly become the subject of years of litigation.
Just forty miles from the nation's capital, Calvert Cliffs is also immersed in contention. Baltimore Gas & Electric has filed for license extensions on the two reactors now operating there, whose continued operation depends on turbine trade-outs that may cost around $300 million. The site is notoriously anti-union. The proposed new reactor may come from AREVA, which would make it the first French commercial reactor built on US soil. A version of the design proposed for Calvert Cliffs is currently billions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule as it's being built in Finland.
Both the South Texas and the Calvert Cliffs proposals have been hotly debated for years, with nothing resembling a public consensus in place. Neither has a reliable financial plan, and even the ultimate designs may be up in the air. What would suddenly give these loan guarantees "emergency" standing is a mystery.
The "green" aspects to this emergency funding proposal have also elicited puzzlement. Safe energy advocates point out that billions of dollars allocated for renewables and efficiency still sit unused at the Department of Energy. The allocations in this proposal appear to be spread out into the years to come, with a far looser timetable than the money allocated for the nukes.
Why a military appropriations bill would be used to deliver loan guarantees for new nuclear plants at a time like this will demand some hard answers down the road.
In the meantime, the green power community will be going all out to prevent them from slipping through.
- 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...
28 Comments so far
Show AllReally, Mr. Wasserman, "there are no reliable technologies capable of controlling a nuclear meltdown?"
The rest of your arguments are as usual about costs of nuclear energy.
If you want cheap energy you should be pretty happy with the status quo.
Coal and oil are quite cheap.
An estimated 30,000 people die every year in the US from pollution associated with coal fired plants, however the coal industry suffers no financial consequences.
If we looked at the true costs of fossil fuels which would have to include the cost of many of our wars, the cost of destabilizing the earth's climate, the cost of the BP oil spill, etc. nuclear energy would not seem so expensive.
It would be great if you would discuss the BP oil spill in terms of its own consequences. (They are ample)
Instead you use a fossil fuel disaster as evidence of a potential nuclear disaster.
The fossil fuels industries are very skilled propagandists.
I know they are having a good laugh over our preoccupation with the risks of nuclear energy, while they enjoy a consequence-free ride.
Harvey, if you are reading this I have more bad news to share. Remember nanotechnology? While it's great for solar panels, plans are in progress to misuse it for extracting coal and oil otherwise difficult to extract and for handling nuclear energy. The Dept of Energy is working hard with the nuclear industries to frame nuclear energy as a "peaceful revolution" and the details are very disturbing. The Pentagon is also working with Dept of Energy on nuclear technologies and "negotiating" on allocating budgets and subsidies for weaponry and energy respectively. I haven't even touched on the 70% classified part which none of us can access. Don't let the detractors and nuclear energy hacks stop you from spelling out the truth.
harvey wasserman:
jstevens....& which of the many old and new nukes we confront will be the Deepwater Horizon of atomic power?
you can calculate all the "costs" you want, but until you figure in the virtual certainty of more Chernobyls, none of your calculations make any sense.
I am terrified of Chernobyl style reactors and the Russian attitude toward safety and the value of life in general.
If we were looking at reactors without containment domes or safety features, I would be standing in the protest waving a No Nukes banner.
Nuclear energy in the US, Japan, France, etc. is much safer than coal and oil.
The Chernobyl disaster is not very relevant to nuclear energy in the US.
It really shouldn't be guiding our policy since this philosophy has led to an increase in fossil fuels.
TMI had a containment dome. It leaked radiation or it was valved off to prevent excessive pressure.
I imagine Vermont Yankee has some sort of containment. It leaks.
Hanford storage leaks,
The Fermi breeder reactor almost lost us Detroit.
And on and on and on, but the proponents say there is no problem, this is all minor. How minor is YOUR cancer or that of your child?
There is one safe nuclear reactor (actually thermonuclear reactor) and that one is 93 million miles away. It delivers adequate energy for our needs,if we harness it. It only requires that we make more than a token attempt to do so.
Many years ago, I said that solar power would only be developed if someone could figure out how to put a meter on a sunbeam.
I remember quite a few years ago that doctors in the TMI area noted an increase in types of cancers that are often caused by certain radiation exposures. This was reported on up through the chain of command, which decided that it was just a coincidence and had no connection to TMI. Hence no deaths.
Same thing in Nevada/Utah, which is a real horror story that rarely meets the press.
Sioux Rose
Amen, Steve! And thanks for posting the poem the other day.
Monsanto claims that bio-engineered "food" presents no health risks; but of course, with this technology (of laboratory pseudo foods) so new, no body of evidence is yet in place from which to make such boasts!
Big OIL claims that deep, deep sea drilling is perfectly safe. Thanks to such confidence (a/k/a hubris), they (in this case BP) were utterly unprepared for the travesty in the Gulf. This massive ecocide makes it too late to say "sorry."
BILLY will argue there have been no casualties from American nuclear power plants, but then the time frame between slow exposure and cancer can be decades; and by then, it becomes difficult to establish the connection, especially on legal grounds. The story of Karen Silkwood still moves me, and it begs to differ with Billy's industry-friendly perspective on this subject.
The MIC sending drones out over Afghanistan/Pakistan insures that it's for America's safety, while in actuality, every time another citizen dies (and estimates show that 90% of these deaths are civilian in nature), someone makes a vow for vengeance against those "American evil-doers." At some point someone will make good on that vow.
The nuclear industry is in no position to claim safety given that it cannot speak of a way to safely store its detritus even now, 40 years AFTER the plants were first opened.
Just like the financial wizards who invented such wonders as "derivatives/swaps" thought they could play fast and loose with the world's currency markets and now, as we see with the fiscal domino effect impacting Greece, Iceland, probably Spain and no doubt others... this crap is dangerous, toxic, and deadly.
The legacy of deregulation has allowed capital (the love of money/mammon) to trump all other concerns, such as every one else's RIGHT TO LIFE! Our planet is fragile and She is experiencing far too many attacks at once along with intense compromises to her interlocking ecosystems. This web is what holds the living world together. As industries make safety claims, strand by strand is being dangerously broken... and as WAYOUT stated on another thread, the ONLY question we really should be facing now centers on the preservation of life, and how best to work with Nature to sustain it.
I am tired of industrial spokespersons for nuclear, oil, coal, the MIC, Monsanto, and others telling us their "products" are perfectly safe. That is pure fiction... it holds till "the next disaster." Many people may not be prepared to rethink the way that they live; however it's fast becoming clear that if they want to live at all, the choices are fast narrowing. Necessity is the mother of invention, and all around us necessity is knocking.
Sioux Rose
BILLY: I think you are a decent guy, and I believe you are well-informed in your field. The issue that I have with nuclear, apart from the comments I previously posted (as per the contention of safety in that, and other, accident-prone technologies) is the issue of exposure relative to the length of time the refuse will remain radioactive.
It took incredibly brilliant minds lots of time to figure out what our ancestors left behind thousands of years ago in codes inscribed on stones during their lifespans. What is the language equivalent that might prepare citizens of the future should they come upon the vats that contain the still dangerous remains of these power sources?
I realize that modern industry only thinks in terms of immediate liability or what insurance actuaries will calculate as per the feasible measurement of the value of a life prematurely taken.
My ethos is more resonant with the Councils of the Indigenous Grandmothers who made decisions that sincerely took into account what their actions would mean to those living SEVEN generations later.
When the nuclear power companies are willing to honor that, I will respect their decision making process and claims to safety.
It is unfortunate that CD would not publish your editorial. I would be interested in hearing your suggestions. Judging from some of the articles that do make the cut, it seems that anything goes as long as you don't violate the Progressive Commandments.
1. Thou shalt honor Ralph Nader above all others.
2. Thou shalt not speak favorably of nuclear energy.
etc.
I got a big kick out of the "economist" a few weeks ago who wrote that printing money doesn't lead to inflation. (Some of the articles are quite informative, though)
Thanks very much for taking the time to write a synopsis.
I heartily agree with the reprocessing proposals.
It's amazing that this is not yet done in the US.
As for the rest--it gives me something to research since some of this is over my head.
Jackie
I am so disappointed that Obama wants off shore drilling and now after seeing the BP disaster ,Obama is still talking about increasing nuclear plants. Accidents happen when human beings are involved whether in off shore drilling or nuclear plants. The risk is so great that it is not worth the little bit of energy we will get from expensive, deadly, nuclear plants. And what about the waste? They tell us there is a risk of terrorist getting into nuclear plants to cause an accident, Why would he want to build more?
Remember when Carter was President and we were told that we needed to conserve energy? We were told that the earth was running out of oil and if we did not stop using so much that future generations would not have energy. Conservation and renewable energy should be the Democrats message.
VP, nuclear energy takes loads of fossil fuels and water just to build and maintain the plants and provide the needed energy. I don't think the oil wars are over yet. By the way, do a google search on hemp and algae and help pass the word around. We need to raise awareness on hemp and algae for fuel and general energy production needs.
I recommend using multiple sources of energy but avoiding coal and nuclear altogether and it can be done if only the scientific proof wouldn't be suppressed.
harvey wasserman
thanks, visiting professor, for the challenge.
curbing corporate power is the great mountain we now must climb. corporations are the most powerful institutions in human history and until we figure out how to democratize them and cut them down to size, we get nowhere.
of course, you know all that...and that there are no easy answers.
my "solution" has been to fight project-by-project and win the victories we can. the biggest now is nuke power, the ultimate bastion of the corrupt corporation. if we can stop the nukes and roll back the power of fossil fuels, we can move our energy economy over to green technologies, which can be community-owned & controlled. this is step one.
alongside that, we need to attack the corporate charter itself. as richard grossman & others have shown, the immunity granted the corporations in their charter & under the misinterpreted 14th amendment is a big part of the legal root of our problem.
i'm pessimistic about electing "anti-corporate" candidates. it's a resounding contradiction. winning campaign finance reform would be a great thing, but this Court has made it increasingly difficult. there seems to be no alternative, however, except to push forward with it. sooner or later, if it arcs toward freedom, the impossible can get done.
so, briefly, pick the issues that most clearly blunt corporate power. attack the root corruption of the corporate charter. strive to somehow democratize elections.
part of that, by the way, is ending marijuana prohibition. this is a much bigger deal than it seems, because the pot laws give police the right to arrest pretty much everyone. and behind it is an even bigger issue, which is hemp, which could liberate our abilities to provide community-owned biofuels as well as helping with the issues of deforestation for paper and the impossibility of raising cotton in a sustainable manner.
so there's for a start....thanks for asking...fire away!!!!
"part of that, by the way, is ending marijuana prohibition. this is a much bigger deal than it seems, because the pot laws give police the right to arrest pretty much everyone."
Wow! I didn't know you thought that! I've thought the same thing since I was a teenager in the early 80s. Not enough of the populace stood up for their rights in opposition to the war on drugs, so the nazis were easily able to start a war on terror to further eviscerate the rights of the populace. It's also getting harder for the oligarchy to continue using fear of drugs to scare people not raised on the yellow journalism of Hearst's reefer madness campaigns. What better than using something strange and unfamiliar to many amerikans than jihadis? Like marijuana used to be.
As the fearmonger Goering said and our modern day fascists practice,
"it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
Remember, the Mob loved Prohibition. It made them millions if not billions. Law enforcement loved Prohibition, they got more money and weapons for the war on booze.
I am sure the Cartels love the "War on Drugs," it makes them billions. Legislators love it because they can enact so many laws to interfere with We the People. A whole industry has been generated around the War on Drugs that gets billions of our tax money for ever more draconian ways to win this elusive "war."
As to Hemp, it makes beautiful paper, cloth, the finest natural rope, grows easily and can be used as fuel, and apparently can be used to produce Ethanol.
Just look at the profits that could generate, and the money that could be saved that is currently being spent on the WOD. You can see why the status quo wants hemp banned, seized and burned. It would interfere with an enormous cash cow.
I wonder if the drug lords are rich and powerful enough that they prevent such reforms in the US.
If it is not the case yet, it soon will be.
Of course they get a lot of help from conservatives, but I suspect it goes much deeper.
Totally agree except for one thing.
The only terrorists are the ones we manufacture.
The GWOT is a farce. It's a war for oil.
Didn't obomber say he was going to end the supplemental appropriations for the Iraq and Afghan wars?