EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Apocalypse in the Gulf Now (Oil) & Next (Nukes)
As BP's ghastly gusher assaults the Gulf of Mexico and so much more, a tornado has forced shut the Fermi2 atomic reactor at the site of a 1966 melt-down that nearly irradiated the entire Great Lakes region.
If the White House has a reliable plan for deploying and funding a credible response to a disaster at a reactor that's superior to the one we've seen at the Deepwater Horizon, we'd sure like to see it.
Meanwhile it wants us to fund two more reactors on the Gulf and another one 40 miles from Washington DC. And that's just for starters.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has warned that at least one new design proposed for federal funding cannot withstand tornadoes, earthquakes or hurricanes.
But the administration has slipped $9 billion for nuclear loan guarantees into an emergency military funding bill, in addition to the $8.33 it's already approved for two new nukes in Georgia.
Unless we do something about it, the House Appropriations Committee may begin the process next week.
Like Deepwater Horizon and Fermi, these new nukes could ignite disasters beyond our technological control--and our worst nightmares.
Like BP, their builders would enjoy financial liability limits dwarfed by damage they could do.
Two of the new reactors are proposed for South Texas, where two others have already been leaking radiation into the Gulf. Ironically, oil pouring into the Gulf could make the waters unusable for cooling existing and future nukes and coal burners.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu recently admitted to Rachel Maddow he has no firm plans for the radioactive wastes created by the proposed new reactors, or by the 104 currently licensed.
That would include Vermont Yankee, where strontium, cesium, tritium and more are leaking into the Connecticut River. VY's rotted underground pipes may have leaking counterparts at every other US reactor.
After 50 years, this industry can't get private financing, can't get private liability insurance and has no solution for its wastes.
The Gulf gusher bears the simple lesson that technologies that require liability limits will rapidly exceed them, and must not be deployed.
No US nuclear utility has sufficient capital resources to cover the damages from a reactor disaster, which is one reason taxpayers are targeted as the ultimate underwriters.
On May 27, the House Appropriations Committee was scheduled to vote on new nuke loan guarantees, which had been attached to an emergency military spending bill. Amidst a flood of grassroots opposition, the vote was postponed.
But it could return as early as June 15. We can and must stop these new guarantees, which would feed the gusher of nuke power hand-outs being dumped into new climate/energy legislation.
By all accounts, despite the horrors of the Gulf, the administration still wants legislation that will expand deepwater drilling and atomic technologies that are simply beyond our control...but that fund apparently unstoppable dividends for corporations like BP.
It's our vital responsibility to transform this crisis into a definitive shift to a totally green-powered earth, based solely on renewables and efficiency. We have a full array of Solartopian technologies that are proven, profitable, insurable and manageable. They are the core of our necessary transition to a prosperous, sustainable future.
As our planet dies around us, truly green climate/energy legislation must come...now!. The next key vote may come when the Appropriations Committee reconvenes.
Make your voice is heard. It's all we have.
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...
139 Comments so far
Show AllThe Obama Regime and nuclear industry are taking advantage of American voters' dismay at the Deepwater Horizon disaster by soliciting voters' support of "clean, safe nuclear power" as an alternative to oil, even though oil fired power plants have been phased out except on islands and remote locations.
harvey wasserman:
right....and there is no trade-off between nukes & oil except that huge quantities of oil are consumed in building nukes.
nukes generate only electricity (in addition to pollution & waste) and only a small percentage of the oil we use (4% by some estimates) goes to electricity.
A lot of oil is also consumed in mining uranium, processing uranium, transporting uranium, building and operating vitrification plants to process nuclear waste...
It's interesting that the oil used in construction and fuel processing never gets mentioned. The same scam works with electric busses that have signs all over them saying Zero Emissions Vehicle. It may be true that, running on electricity, they aren't emitting anything out of that individual bus right now, but the polluting fuels used to provide the electricity, to construct the vehicles, etc., etc., etc., is not included in the "Zero Emissions" assessment.
The US consumes about 25% of the world's oil; the domestic supply still accessible is about 2% of the world's. So, we will never be petro-independent. Nukes offer little in terms of energy independence. Uranium ore in North America is depleted; mine tailings, processing waste, post-production and post-use waste can never be made safe. Until some high school kid, or better yet, a meth maker, stumbles onto a cold fusion reactor, carbon based life forms will always need carbon based energy. Similarly, until some MBA candidate stumbles onto a way to make solar power extremely expensive, solar won't go anywhere either. There are times when the simplest and most sensible pursuits go unrecognized and under-funded. This is one of those times, and it's going to last until Mad Max looks like a documentary.
harvey wasserman
the key is cracking the power of the corporations. they hate renewables precisely because they are cheap, as you say, and can be community-owned.
it's the same reason hemp is illegal: it means cheap, home-grown fuel, clothing & paper. and marijuana, of course, is a cheap anti-depressant.
The ONLY reason that we are concerned about the Gulf spill is that oil is so visible, unlike a radioactive air mass resulting from a nuclear "accident". In the event of such an accident, we would simply remain uninformed.
From the very beginning, BP has sought to downplay the gravity of the spill and to keep as much information from the public as possible. It is a lesson as to how the nuclear industry would react. It is standard corporate behavior.
harvey wasserman
you are right...BP's response is exactly what we'd expect from a nuke utility....denial denial denial....except here we can SEE the oil and at a nuke we can't see the radioactivity, which is nonetheless massively lethal...
Obama promised clean coal--then there was the Massey mine disaster.
Obama said "oil spills hardly happen any more"--then there was BP's Earth Day celebration Deepwater oil spill disaster.
Obama says there will be clean and safe nuclear power.
Let's hope he's not batting three for three.
Republicans support nukes and nuking out Iran. Obama isn't supporting nuclear energy because he likes it. He's under a lot of pressure. Give the guy a break man.
Im disappointed too with Democrats breaking for the GOP but the country has moved to the right since 1980 and were not about to reverse that fast. Its not the party alone thats the problem. It would take forever to expect a third party to win or make changes. There is no guarantee that a third party would be different so we have changes to make on our own besides voting.
I don't support nukes for energy but if it can be set up safely, then why not give it a chance? We can cry about doom gloom apocalypse 24/7/365 but why not focus on strategies for reducing the demand for electricity from coal and nuclear? Next month, I will be on a 1.5 year contract renovating buildings with energy saving structural replacements and enhancements. If more jobs like that come up, we could set the stage for going green.
Its because the companies that build these things are just like BP, wanting to break the rules that they are supposed to follow, in order to make more profits. Breaking the rules puts everyone at risk. We cannot trust these companies, who put profits before public safety.
These companies (such as Westinghouse) are too big to fail - but no nuclear plant is too big to not have a major accident eventually, especially as things fall apart from old age.
Also, caring for and disposing of the wastes will be yet another non-ending bailout. And for a very long time. We are still trying to figure out what to do with wastes generated during World War Two. Our great-great-great-great-great grandchildren and their great-great-great-great grandchildren will be caring for these wastes then as well. And paying for their cleanup. Why? So some companies can reap some huge profits and past the true costs onto the public sector, while we run out of uranium. Maybe in 50 years.
Nuclear power is a short term source of energy. We are running out of extractible uranium. Much of what is used currently comes from decommissioned warheads, not mined out of the ground and refined. Like oil, uranium has peaked. Fusion power is so far a myth, in terms of its power generation.
Youre right about nuclear waste disposal but I think theres a fix for it. I heard that nuclear waste can be reprocessed for reusable purposes. Breeder reactors? Billy4 knows this. I don't know if its safe or not. I would prefer more solar paneling and other renovations to reduce the demand. Nuclear would be my very last resort.
You are CORRECT Shawn Berry - I read a white paper report from a scientist funded by Westinghouse that nuke waste can safely be converted into a toothpaste additive which will add an unbelievable white glow to your smile.
I think you should sign up for the beta testing.
Naw, you can sign up first or sign Rosie or "Ephraim" up first. I already got my white smiles.
harvey wasserman
if they build more reactors, nuclear power will more a lot more than just a last resort....it'll be a last global graveyard
Can't argue with that.
Fascinating. You actually agree with Wasserman and even say nuclear would be your "last resort," yet you can't contain your vehemence and vitriol if I or, god forbid, Sioux Rose, also agrees with Wasserman. I take issue with SaboCat's defense of nuclear and you agree with him, just so you can trash me. You have no principles or convictions about anything that matters. All you do is target particular people you happen to decide to despise. You really don't give a damn about any of these issues. You're just here to flame and create as much friction as you can. Some agenda you have.
Don't support nuclear but if energy demand goes up and not enough renovations and architectural changes, then nuclear must be put on the table. Don't think Sabocat supports it unless I missed something.
alright dude, I know your angry so read the comments under michele chen's article and then come back for another reply when you done. getting sleepy now.
"alright dude, I know your angry so read the comments under michele chen's article and then come back for another reply when you done. getting sleepy now."
Wow ! That looks like a big turnaround for a guy who normally caused a ruckus on this forum since October of last year. Smart move for once sir. I hope that you can eventually prove to us that you have indeed turned a new leaf.
I saw your statement on your internal conflict you had. Withdrawing from a war may look like some loss to be afraid of at first glance but please rest assured that you will win a long term victory of returning peace. Prolonging a war, in contrast, will only make you lose what is left of you. The sooner you withdraw from a war, the better you can win long term peace and sanctity for yourself and for others. Be well sir.
PS: You still owe Ephraim an apology as well. He is willing to let you know when you are right and when you are wrong. Consider yourself lucky to be here so that you might learn some things instead of causing a ruckus too often.
Prudence Rules:
Responding Responsibly to BP Leak
June 2010
Prudence demands responses that span the following dimensions:
1. Develop a sense of focused urgency around response; e.g. refer to the overall situation as “hydrocarbon’s Chernobyl” to emphasize magnitude of the problem, and promise “Never again” to emphasize resolve in learning from this catastrophe. Use Chernobyl reference—linked with images of [1] “heckuva job, Brownie”; [2] “credit default swap” gamblers playing poker for “walking around money”, but using nuclear power plant “futures” as chips.
2. Require “best available control technology” (BACT) to limit oil leakage and damage attributable to it; include “technology forcing” provisions. Practically, this might require developing categories of drilling situations and specified BACT for each such category.
3. Require redundancy in oil drilling practice. For example, require drilling of “relief well” (specifications TBD) BEFORE beginning to drill production well (viz. beyond exploratory wells; specifications TBD) Direct taxes on marginal cost of such redundancy to be applied societal-learning discussed below
4. Develop institutions to facilitate societal learning, at all levels: in this sense, a catastrophe is a terrible “learning opportunity” to waste. Securely fund such institutions, including institutional redundancy for “cross-checking” in attempt to limit co-optation and lax oversight (see Mining and Mineral Service of US Department of Interior in, BP case).
5. Develop catastrophe recovery curricula, to whatever extent recovery from this BP catastrophe is possible: develop teach-the-teacher materials, for classroom and for field studies. Such materials should introduce and develop concept and practice of systems thinking.
If we bring all of far flung military and use the resources saved, we might be able to mount a viable response to our energy situation. Lots of luck.
The relentless push of "capitalism" (in reality an evil religion) for more, more, more. This Moloch demands more oil, more nukes, more consumers to consume more, more weapons, more profits for its high priest elites. Until we learn to dare to say "less", the nightmare will continue to its inevitable final day when the one remaining capitalist, looking remarkably like Jabba the Hutt, will die foundered on his last gruesome meal, amidst the ruins of a dying planet.
Excerpts from my essay titled, "No Nukes: STILL the only 'good nukes'!!!" (June 2009)
I have a personal history with nukes… Back in the early 1970s, I worked as an engineer on nuclear power plants...
In response to those who might say that there has been a lot of progress in the past 40 years and no accidents in the last 30 years… I would be surprised if there hadn't been "major advances" on the technology front over the past 40 years. But my main point was not really about technology; rather, it was that the technological shortcomings I described reflected management errors...
Like we used to say back then, "one nuke can ruin your whole day." I am willing to consider substantive arguments that management now pursues safety with the same vigor they used to reserve for making profit, but it would be an uphill argument. To which I would add a series of questions…Do those who want nukes seek only a power surge, or cash money from a short-term job? Or to stomp “these radical enviros” to prove how tough they are? I must admit that arguments in favor of nukes grounded in climate change present a greater challenge to anti-nuke people like me, but at least that argument can be grounded in the moral dimension, where so far at least, bad managers don’t yet play a role.
I hate to imagine the radioactive mess that an Enron or an AIG "smartest guy in the room" could make if he or she were to treat a nuke as just another opportunity to pocket a few additional million. I imagine that a lot of people will hate to imagine it too—no matter how many jobs a new nuke would most assuredly generate? How could they explain to their grandchildren that they had sold out their grandchildrens’ planet for however many pieces of silver such jobs that those heads of energy companies and heads of Ohio’s State Government came together to announce back in June [2009]
What specific steps do you recommend for progressives to take in order to attain the power to change this corrupt system?
Can't speak for Harvey but giving more construction jobs on structurally implementing energy saving material for renovation and plans for building new homes that help in saving energy could be helpful. If we can't gvt to help us on it, we'll have to pressure the construction companies to cooperate.
Where do we go from here? is always the essential question.
Vote. Lobby. Call in to talk shows. Demonstrate. Agitate. Write Legislators. Get arrested. Go to jail. Write and publish in local papers, avoid the web.
Focus on the local. How can we change energy patterns where we are.
We got soft and thought voting would change the world, but it never does.
Progressives need to take a lesson from the right wing nuts who understand that unless you demand a foot you will never get an inch.
Obama has repeatedly demanded an inch and ended up with a millimeter.
You'r eright of course: it's not who is right in either a practical or a moral sense who gets his/her/their way; it all comes down to power/ I like to embellish upon Jurgen Habermas's list of adverbs: the distribution of power -- and access to it -- is "always already systematically asymmetric.
Also, it is clear that the "economist approach" won't work: assume you have the million dollars. At the same time, for the first time since the Republicans adopted the scorched-NO policy--I feel as though there are now Southerners who could be reached by Obama. That's positive!
harvey wasserman
visiting professor:
good stuff. it's extremely tough to predict what actions will work. i think we have to flood both the congress & the media with opposition the upcoming votes on reactor loan guarantees. if this is a "legislative strategy," it's definitely short term. this is a key moment & we have to make ourselves felt & beat these subsidies, if we can---we have done it before, with significant impact.
we also need to sue where it makes sense, with limited expectations.
and do what greenpeace does so well, take direct action, and build public opposition.
we also need to attack the corporate charters of these horrible companies, starting now with BP. it'd be interesting to see what kind of precedent and consciousness we can build.
we $1m now i'd campaign as hard as possible against these loan guarantees, making a huge issue of them. we have succeeded in the past in cutting off this dirty money for new nukes, & i think we need to do it again....
A big HEL-LO to the paid boiler room bloggers, hired by the nuclear industry's ad agency, and writing under multiple pseudonyms on Common Dreams to look like multiple viewpoints.
- - -
My concern with nuclear power is that various people with moderate credibility have estimated the casualties, the cancer deaths, from both Chernobyl and from Three Mile Island. No one in the scientific community has ever challenged these figures. I'm sure the boiler room folks could make something up out of thin air on the spot today and sign the invisible Mr. Pootywinkle's name to it, but no actual person with their name on the piece of paper has ever challenged those death estimates.
Mother Jones Magazine pegged the casualties from Three Mile Island at 50,000 Americans. One scientific panel recently pegged the Chernobyl deaths at 500,000. That's the kind of disaster that Mr. Wasserman, the reporter, fears.
I realize that the BP oil spill has ruined the lives of many thousands of people, and has probably poisoned a thousand or two residents who are reporting flu-like symptoms, and the oil sheen could still heat up the entire Gulf and so help a hurricane get really major in August, but the spill still has a long way to go to match Three Mile Island's human destruction.
Gee Bill,
We just witnessed the types of conspiracies you mock in both the oil and banking industries. I'll wager nuclear industry CEO's graduated from the exact same business schools and have the exact same ambitions. Judge Rambo definitely was on the take imho.
Have you seen this evidence saying cows killed 150 miles away by Iodine-131 means the radiation figures you cite are off by up to 1000 times too low? Note to reader: cut and paste this into your browser top window. I had to put it on four lines because of the CD Wordpress limitations:
http://a.blip.tv/scripts/flash/showplayer.swf?file=http%3A%2F%2Fblip.tv/rss/flash/1937522
&showplayerpath=http%3A%2F%2Fblip.tv/scripts/flash/showplayer.swf&feedurl=
http://tmialert.blip.tv/rss/flash&brandname=blip.tv&brandlink=
http://blip.tv/%3Futm_source%3Dbrandlink&enablejs=true
Best Regards,
TJ
Psssst, Here's more:
http://www.tmia.com/
harvey wasserman
bill...this is utter nonsense.....the state of PA etc have no idea how much radiation escaped from tmi, where it went and who it harmed. the stack monitors went off scale, the TMDs did show abnormal releases, and the animals throughout the area dropped dead & were born deformed.
Yeah PaulK,
Odds are, the nuclear mafia is still sinking ships off the coast of Somalia full of Reactor waste. They have apparently hooked up with our hope-and-change Chicago Gangster and will shove leaky dangerous nukes plants into all our back yards.
No system can be built requiring a 100 percent safety factor. It's impossible. Aviation is an extremely safe system, yet every model airliner ever built with any time in the air, eventually had a worse-case scenario happen to it sometime in it's flying history, killing the poor saps who trusted a for-profit system to act as a custodian of public safety. With an airliner, only 100 people buy the farm and it's over. But a the consequences of a meltdown can last decades. The more Nuclear power plants you build, the more danger the citizens are in. And the price for just one of them melting down is a dead zone the size of a state that can't be inhabited for 600 years (if the larger Chernobyl fallout the size of the state of Alabama is any guide.)
See:
http://planetliberty.wikidot.com/nuclear-power-incidents
TJ
Sioux Rose
TJ: Great post, and thanks for caring... also kudos to Ephraim, Paul K and others.
As Billy tries to relate, the statistics are very difficult to come by. This will be the same issue that will later show up in a generation being raised on bio-genetically altered "food," added to the Gulf eco-crisis and its chemical constituents going airborne. Worse than the oil will likely be whatever remnant of the dispersant agent evaporates and melds with precipitation to rain down on other regions slowly compromising, or perhaps contaminating crops and livestock.
The climate is one of so many trespasses that the trespassers set up their own basis for relative impunity. Since it becomes difficult to prove the chain of events when so many corporate policies are collectively compromising public health, the burden of proof itself becomes nebulous.
Corporations, which are the modern version of pharaohs, perceive citizens of the world as slaves and/or collateral damage. Nothing in the way of conscience, morality, or the remotest premise of serving the greater good enters into their policies or protocols. Their "gods" are mammon (the naked profit motive) and Mars (the muscle through which to acquire "necessary" resources.)
Any who argue on the side of corporations, whether they think nuclear is "practical" or that science is never wrong, are arguing for their own (or their children's) extinction. Poor gamble all the way. Time is NOT on your side as the nuclear plants slowly age and increase the risks of leaks or worse.
I remain skeptical that US electric power demand being entirely met with wind and solar. I use little electricity meself and I never use A/C in summer, but my neighbors have all turned their on and closed their windows for the season. I heard some units running last night when the outsoor temperature was in the 50's.
And as the heavily car-dependent us culture starts converting to plug-in electric cars (and they won't be small eelctric cars either) demand will only increase.
Me, I wouldn't mind restrictions and rationing or electricity usage, and even occasional power outages. But most USAns and the business interests that manufacture their "American Dream" would find such a thing completely unacceptable.
For these reasons, and becasue we really need an immediate halt to coal power plant construction, nuclear electrictiy generation must remain on the table along with heavy development of renewable, as it is in Europe and the rest of the world.
The comparison of the deepwater Horizon disaster and nuclear power is a comparison of apples and oranges and is rather disingenuous. One is a very poorly regulated process that deals with unpredictable, poorly understood, and powerful geologic forces, where brash and unsophisticated engineering decisions are often made (I've worked in oil drilling). The other is a top-to-bottom engineered system dealing with completely understood physical processes, with redundant safety syatems, if not inherent safety in the design, and rigorous government regulation (I've worked on nuclear plant construction projects too).
We have already probably seen a worst-case failure of a light-water reactor - Three Mile Island. And contrary to some unsubstantiated claims, no one died, and no environmental damage was done - not a single fish in the Susquehanna or bird in the sky was killed. The fish in the Susquehanna are not particularly wholesome to eat, but that is because of mercury and oher heavy metals from coal-burning power plant fallout and coal mines upstream. TMI is one of the few things that is NOT polluting the river or air in Pennsylvania. Same with the Beaver Valley Nuclear plant near where I live.
No doubt that radioactive Kool-Aid is very tasty!
No doubt that black magic Rosie bullshit Kool-Aid is very tasty !
Sioux Rose
SB: YOU are radioactive. You are a senseless, arrogant baboon that would not know his ass from his elbow. If you ever read a serious adult book in your life I would be surprised. You poison this forum and I am going to ask that your karma return to you promptly. You have been cyber-STALKING me for months. I would like to take legal action against you.
You try to discredit people who are your BETTERS in every sense of the word.
It is amazing that you can dominate as many threads as you do with nothing of substance to say. If you are an appliance repair man, I am the MAN in the moon.
GO TO HELL where you came from.
P.S. The level of hatred you vent at me indicates that you are a closet misogynist AND homosexual. You cannot bear that a woman speaks with power and EARNED authority; and that she can see right through a transparent know-nothing like you. You probably failed boot camp, so they gave you an office job to act like a thug in these threads. Or are you just fat and out of shape, and no decent woman will have you?
Already in hell with you doom glooming bullshitter. I ain't been cyberstalking you and the records prove it. You been cyberstalking me but I don't mind whipping you whiney back rightwinger and the records prove it. You can lie but not archives. Karm's biting you back. Take your doom gloom hate talk elsewhere. You cant take legal action against anyone. You got no evidence or anything to make a case. Go ahead and try. You tried accusing others who didn't agree with you as being some made up "tag team" or group and then you run away everytime your proven wrong. Was a dumbass for a minute when I suspected Visiting Professor for being part of your gang but now I see he's not a shithead like you. I share his constructive ideas and even he knows that just predicting doom gloom 24/7/365 is not constructive. You not scaring me. CD would have banned me a long time ago if I were a cyber stalker but I'm clean so they won't. Funny they didn't ban you for heresy but thats their call. Your own posts sound misandrist and partially misogynist. Been happily married and no divorces or marital problems. Most women don't share your ugly vision. You had problems with your man? Don't blame other men for it and don't go bashing women who don't share you narrow minded views.
You aint got authority to dominate this forum and you're not a CD moderater. Nice to see others standing up to your bs and seeing your bias. Keep sending in your sock puppet defenders. I see you ran away on the Hedges article when Visiting Professor, Lawton Hunter, and Aquifier tried to end the war. You keep trying to drag me into you flame wars. You can't beat me and you know it. Find something constructive to say or get lost and take your doom gloom black magic bs and made up aliases with you. You cant take away people's rights to be assholes.
Saw your site. Take a look at your ugly face in the mirror. It sucks to be you. Get a face lift and find a man.
Edit: As of this evening, I decided to stop doing war with Sioux Rose and will be working on putting my past behind me.
That's bad when people are using ACs even when it's 50. I hope you can get some renovation projects working on turning those buildings energy efficient to offset the energy waste.
What you say about Europe isn't completely true. Portugal (or is it Spain) has been going mainly solar and they have had issues unlike France. I hear that many nations in Europe are pushing farther ahead with efforts to go green and rev up the conservation efforts just in case. This nation is a laughing stock for sticking with coal and nuclear as their main sources of electricity and Harvey is right that unless this changes that, we're doomed to toxic wasteland status just like the gulf. I say stand up to the energy guzzlers and declare NO to nuclear.
harvey wasserman
i agree....give 'em HELL!!!
"But how exactly do we stand up? What would be the most effective way?"
I am not sure what the best answer is but there has to be some way we can prove that solar and wind technologies obviate the need for going nuclear. I think that we should continue to spell out the risks and every time the pro-nuclear talkers try to make it look like the risks are not that bad or have been solved we should be prepared to prove them wrong and/or point out new problems from their supposed solutions/fixes. I don't know how else to stand up on this matter. If there is a more effective way and there could be, I would love to hear it so that I can pass it around to alert others about it.
Harvey, I mistyped a word in one of my sentences. The sentence
"Portugal (or is it Spain) has been going mainly solar and they have had issues unlike France."
should read
"Portugal (or is it Spain) has been going mainly solar and they have not had issues unlike France."
As you know, that is a big difference. Someone, Prometheus I think, argued about subsidization costs being high but I checked the research data on the net and found that subsidizing costs solar technologies was far less than either coal or nuclear. I think Big Coal and Big Nuclear are trying to engage in the Duo-Walmartization of energy. There needs to be general confidence in going green and to stop worrying about sacrifices which really aren't that bad once you know the long term benefits.
harvey wasserman
very strongly disagree with all of this, from bottom to top, tho i'm grateful for the civil tone:
people WERE killed at three mile island & it was NOT a worst-case scenario. they worried for quite a while there about a hydrogen explosion that might have brought us closer to a chernobyl, which at last count killed a million people. the victims at TMI have never gotten a jury trial and i don't think that's an accident.
i have NO faith in the nuclear regulatory process & neither should you. look at the keystone kop show at davis-besse.
we must indeed stop building coal plants, but all our efforts must go into efficiency, conservation & renewables.
restrictions on energy usage would be fine with me. i teach at 2 colleges & spend my days turning off lights. in one of my rooms & regularly find the heat on, the windows closed & the AC running. who is sane here?
our car-dependent culture needs the restoration of a mass transit system that was wilfully & maliciously destroyed by general motors. the "love affair" with the automobile is the result of a murder.
thanks again for your comments....but solartopia is not only possible, it's necessary....
You can't argue with opponents of nuclear power. It is just like arguing with the right-wing (usually) AGW denialists or a "9-11 was an inside job types. They believe in vast corrupt conspiracies at every turn. And from what source or arrogance does someone with no technical knowledge on the matter feel authorized to speak with such authority about nuclear power plant safety? Frankly, as a government regulator a licensed professional engineer, and a Marxist committed to economic and social justice, I regard these accusations as personal insults.
Chernobyl, man, Chernobyl. Nothing personal here. There are many other smaller incidents including in Europe where professionalism and government regulation is much more honest and stringent. Nuclear plants are planned, built and run by the same flawed and corrupt types who are responsible for the oil drilling and for ignoring mine safety in the name of expediency.
(By the way, I do believe that an informed civilian has as much right and duty to speak on these issues as a technocrat. Some technocrats are really dumb or say what they are paid to say.)
Joe
As long as public demand for energy goes up, Chernobul, Massa Energy, and TMI won't get a public hearing.