In last night's State of the Union address, President Obama said that "(t)o create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country." Despite his statement, the President knows better.
Nuclear power is neither safe nor clean. There is no such thing as a "safe" dose of radiation and just because nuclear pollution is invisible doesn't mean it's "clean." For years nuclear plants have been leaking radioactive waste from underground pipes and radioactive waste pools into the ground water at sites across the nation. Mr. Obama was prompted to address the issue when radioactive contamination was found in drinking wells and off the nuclear plant site at Exelon's Braidwood nuclear plant.
In 2006, when the President was serving as a senator from Illinois, he introduced the Nuclear Release Notice Act to address the radioactive contamination of groundwater at several nuclear reactors in his state. Unfortunately, the bill never became law.
Rather than hold nuclear power plant owners accountable for the uncontrolled and unmonitored leaks, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) handed the problem over to the nuclear industry's lobbyists. Despite the fact that tritium releases to groundwater violate the terms of the nuclear plant's license, the NRC has failed to exercise its regulatory authority. Instead, NRC has allowed the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) to create a voluntary industry program to deal with the tritium contamination.
Since then, the trickle of operators of nuclear plants acknowledging that they've contaminated the ground water at their sites has grown into a deluge. The nuclear plants that have admitted leaking radioactive hydrogen or tritium into the groundwater include: Braidwood, Byron & Dresden in Ilinois; Indian Point & Fitzpatrick in New York; Yankee Rowe & Pilgrim in Massachusetts; Three Mile Island & Peach Bottom in Pennsylvania; Callaway in Missouri; Oyster Creek in New Jersey; Hatch in Georgia; Palo Verde In Arizona; Perry in Ohio; Point Beach in Wisconsin; Salem in Delaware; Seabrook in New Hampshire; Watts Bar in Tennessee; Wolf Creek in Kansas; Connecticut Yankee and most recently Vermont Yankee. This NY Times article explains it all.
This list is likely incomplete and still growing. It remains difficult for the public to track which nuclear plants are leaking radioactive contamination because the NRC has failed to update its website since October of 2007 when it abdicated its authority to the industry's voluntary initiative.
The President was then less than pleased with the industry's voluntary regulation of radioactive leaks. Then Senator Obama responded that
(w)hile it's encouraging that the nuclear industry recognizes it has a special responsibility to keep communities informed of tritium leaks, the voluntary guidelines recommended by the Nuclear Energy Institute would still allow tritium leaks to occur without the public ever finding out about it. The nuclear industry already has a voluntary policy, and it hasn't worked.
Obama's comments now seem prophetic. Recently, just one week after the government regulators extended the operating license for the 40-year-old Oyster Creek reactor in New Jersey, the plant owner admitted leaking radioactive contamination into the plants ground water. This most recent revelation has prompted several members of Congress to ask the U.S. General Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate the leaks and how regulators at the NRC have mishandled the issue.
According to Congressman Ed Markey, who oversees the NRC, "(u)nder current regulations, miles and miles of buried pipes within nuclear reactors have never been inspected and will likely never be inspected."
Markey concluded that "(t)his is simply unacceptable. As it stands, the NRC requires-at most-a single, spot inspection of the buried piping systems no more than once every 10 years. This cannot possibly be sufficient to ensure the safety of both the public and the plant."
If President Obama truly wants a clean energy economy and the jobs that come with it, he should abandon the failed policies of the past. Nuclear power is a dirty and dangerous distraction from the clean energy future the President has promised America.
--Written with Greenpeace Nuclear Analyst Jim Riccio
Follow Daniel Kessler on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dkess
Rooftop PV Solar systems are being installed for 2$ or less:
Here is the proof of that:
rooftop pf install systems for less than 2$ per Wp installed(3 cents per KWH*):
http://eetd.lbl.gov/EA/EMP/reports/lbnl-2674e.pdf
Page 16, list the installed cost from 2$ to 20$.
35% of the system cost 7-8$
15% cost 6-7$
5% cost 5-6$
2% cost 4-5$
about 1% cost 3-4$
about .5% cost 2-3$
and 62 system were not included because they cost less than 2$
Here is where YOU CAN BUY panels for 1$/Wp for new panels.
Shop around. And this is before subsides. check for subsides in your area, state federal, utility, and solar contractors all have subsides and funding options.
Solar Panels prices per peak watt have dropped from 8$ per Wp to less than 2$ per peak what.
98 cents 201001 (1.88 /Wp 090929 was 1.55 per peak watt 090801)
http://www.atensolar.com/EPV.
http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar_panels.htm
*as an investment(cash) , over 30 years, 6 hours "sunniness"
Nukes 25 cents per KWH,
http://energyeconomyonline.com/uploads/Is_New_Nuclear_Competitive_July_10_2009_FNS_Event.pdf
http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/05/study-cost-risks-new-nuclear-power-plants/
10$ per W nuclear build cost.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/15/nuclear-power-plant-cost-bombshell-ontario/
Nuclear industry and their supporters in government are liars.
I also remember when they were first building them, inspectors found construction workers had thrown their empty [beer] bottles into the cement, which, of course had to be replaced. How many human errors like this were missed? How many would be missed in the future? Yes, the system is perfect until a laborer throws his empty into the mix.
No nukes!
We should be following the German example where families, small and medium sized businesses can directly benefit.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/04/germany-the-worlds-first-major-renewable-energy-economy
If we had to see industrial solutions, I'd rather see hydro electric power generation.
Our planet contains a large amount of fissionable material like urainium, (there are others, but for this discussion, I will talk about urainium) that some planets do not. This material is constantly and naturally being “burned†inside our planet and turned into lead, that is how we date rocks, by measuring the ratio of these materials.
The heat this process naturally produces is the reason our planted still has a molten mantel, unlike say Mars, which does not, but was formed at about the same time. All we are in essence doing is takeing some of this material that occurs naturally in our planet and is naturally burning inside our planet now, concentrating it, burning it in our reactors, capturing the heat for our purposes, (generating electricty) then returning the resuling material, which would have been produced overtime in our planet anyway, and reburying it.
Our old style reactors were less efficient and produced a byproduct that was highly radioactive, (still burning hot, like embers in a fire) and needed to be guarded for 10,000 years. Newer style reactors are much more efficient, and can burn the existing waste you are talking about, producing a byproduct (not still burning hot like embers, more like ash from a fire) that is radioactive for only 200 years.
MIT Link ( not a rightwing group).
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/19758
They sell Thorium fuel rods that are even more radioactive for a 100 years.
There is radiation all around us all the time. The earth is filled with natural elements that emit radiation all the time.
There in every rock you ever touched. We date rocks by measuring the level of radioactive decay.
Google "background radiation"
Most sane environmentalists support nuclear because they are smart enough to realize the alternative is coal. Solar and wind due to storage issues (batteries) can only supply 20-25 % of our power so real environmentalists know The ONLY choice we have today for the other 75% of baseline 24/7 power are Coal or Nuclear. They don’t like coal, so they support nuclear.
As Bill Gates pointed out at the TED conference new (or new fuel for old reactors) reactors offer no possibility of a meltdown, generate its power inexpensively, CREATE NO WEAPONS-GRADE BY-PRODUCTS, and burn up existing high-level waste as well as old nuclear weapon stockpiles. Thorium fuel can be modified to be used in current reactors.
Read this article from MIT ( not a rightwing group).
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/19758
http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar_panels.htm
rooftop pv 3 cents sola, wind, eff, and waste biofuels can supply the first world energy comforts to the entire world
Quickly Clean Safe Cheap and Forever.
1 trillion dollar investment in Green energy can pay back of a trillion dollars a years year after year.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/research complete proof, argument and links.
Don't fall for the same old big money, big danger, proven failure of TMI Chernobyl Nukes.
Solar PV with Pumped Hydro storage: $2,800 billion
Solar PV with NaS battery storage: $4,600 billion
Solar Thermal with storage: $4,400 billion
Nuclear Power: $120 billion
Just the cost of the Power Transmission TRUNK lines (500kv AC - not superexpensive superconducting ) to supply Australia with Wind & Solar Energy is $180 billion -- 50% MORE THAN THE ENTIRE NUCLEAR OPTION!!
CO2 emissions for all of Australia for 30 days:
Solar PV: 71 million tonnes
Coal: 219 million tonnes
Coal with CCS: 33 million tonnes
Nuclear: 3.3 million tonnes
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/09/10/solar-realities-and-transmission-costs-addendum/
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/lang_solar_realities_v2.pdf
PV solar generates Zero CO2
Wind can provide 25% without storage.
Waste bio Fuels can take our pollution and convert it to enough fuels and energy to supply the rest.
With a world superconducting cable, that Buckminster Fuller proposed decades ago, Solar can provide 24/7 electricity to the entire world.
Solar is already the cheapest electricity the end use invest in, in Hawaii, CA and most of the south: as low as 3 cents per KWH, for electricity that cost 30 cents or more.
No proof of any of it as none exists.
As for his absurd 3 cents a kilowatt hour
For real commercial costs, Google Arcadia Fl. Solar
42 Gwh/annual. The largest PV plant in the country just opened by Obama hisself , $150M total cost, $32B/Gw average or 50 cents a kwh at Florida Power's discount rate.
yes you do.
Nukes cost 25 cents per KWH, minimum.
For the real costs of nuclear try Chernobyl and TMI.
Feel free to show your math.
If only this were a high school popularity contest. But it isn't. This is the adult world where real world solutions are needed since millions of people's welfare and livelihood are affected.
So what is Chu saying to Obama?
--------
"Mr. President, the simple fact is that Solar and Wind power will never supply more than 20% of our grid. It is a physical and technological impossibility, no matter what the alternative energy promoters say. The only reason Europe has beens so successful with wind and solar is that they have a massive block of nuclear reactors in France, stablizing the entire European grid .
Here are the numbers (he provides a study) provided by the top energy experts in the country.
Mr. President, we either start back with nuclear power, or this nation is forever condemned to burn coal until our land is black with soot. Or, as another option, we do not survive the next century."
Obama: "But many of our constituency are afraid of nuclear power."
Chu: "Well, my Grandma was wouldn't sit in the driver's seat of a car. She was scared to death of them. That doesn't mean we shut down the whole highway system ."
Obama: "Good point. OK, how do we do this right. Let's set the groundwork. Let's start to pull this issue away from the Republicans, otherwise this will be dogging us forever."
I've worked with conservative engineers and scientist, and they always want the deadly stuff, even if we don';t need it.
They want it because it create a security culture that they are in charge of.
Conservatives want to be Monarchs, controlling the fearful Peasants, and nukes are just great for that.
Nukes are Apocalyptic. That's not exaggeration, that's a fact.
The newer “Thorium†style reactors, and all our old nuclear reactors with drop in “Thorium†replacement rods (which are a mixture of Thorium, Urainium, and nuclear waste either from nuclear plants or weapons) do not produce weapons material.
As Bill Gates pointed out at the TED conference (Gates, “we could power the entire US by burning the nuclear waste we have today in Thorium reactorsâ€
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/12/bill-gates-ted-speech-201_n_461034.html and has Dr Chu, Obamas Energy Czar (a PhD in Physics and a Nobel Prize winner in Physics), pointed out to Obama, and as Harry Reid, Democrate Senate leader has pointed out (Google it), New Thorium reactors offer no possibility of a meltdown, generate its power inexpensively, create no weapons-grade by-products, and burn up existing high-level waste as well as old nuclear weapon stockpiles. Thorium fuel rods can be modified to be used in current reactors to convert old reactors to Thorium reactors.
Here is a link on from MIT on Thorium reactors and Thorium fuel rods (MIT, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is not a rightwing group).
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/19758
or just google: “Thorium reactors†or “Thorium fuel rods“ on your own.
The nuclear reactors in France are what make wind and solar power viable in Europe. Without that backbone of French nuclear power, routed all over Europe, the wind and solar installations would be useless because of their intermittency.
.
Most sane environmentalists support nuclear because they are smart enough to realize the alternative is coal. Solar and wind due to storage issues (batteries) can only supply 20-25 % of our power so real environmentalists know The ONLY choice we have today for the other 75% of baseline 24/7 power are Coal or Nuclear. They don’t like coal, so they support nuclear.
The issue is not how much power can be generated by Solar, the issue is we cannot store it for use when the sun is not shinning. The south, where energy use is highest on hot sunny days due to air conditioner use, is the best application for solar. But you are incorrect about 24/7 baseloads because even in the south, the sun does not shine at night. For that you would need huge batteries with their own environmental issues. Read your cell phone battery's disposal warning.
As Bill Gates pointed out at the TED conference new (or new Thorium fuel rods for old reactors) Thorium reactors offer no possibility of a meltdown, generate its power inexpensively, CREATE NO WEAPONS-GRADE BY-PRODUCTS, and burn up existing high-level waste as well as old nuclear weapon stockpiles. Thorium fuel can be modified to be used in current reactors.
Read this article from MIT ( not a rightwing group).
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/19758
- Solar power: after 30 years of relentless effort, it's still not clear that solar panels even break even, energy-wise. Most solar installations are dramatically understating maintenance requirements. One good hailstorm and you could see an entire solar farm destroyed. That is totally ignored by the solar promoters. Most rooftop solar panels will never pay back the energy that was used to manufacture, install, and maintain them.
Wind power: also a maintenance nightmare. They break down constantly. Incredibly dangersous for workers (little known fact...US wind farms can't even do normal lubrication service because they can't get workmen's comp insurance.)
Thorium reactors offer no possibility of a meltdown, generated its power inexpensively, created no weapons-grade by-products, and burnt up existing high-level waste as well as old nuclear weapon stockpiles. Thorium fuel can be modified and used in current reactors.
Here are some sources or just google “thorium reactorsâ€
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348/
http://www.globenewswire.com/news.html?d=174042
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19758
Times for rooftop solar, wind, eff, and WASTE bio fuels.
http://www.alternet.org/audits/132852?page=entire
What we really need to do is OPEN Yucca Mountain, and start ordering the New reactor designs to replace the 140 or so first generation of Nuclear Reactors that are producing energy for us now.