The mystery has been solved.
Where is this "new reactor renaissance" coming from?
There has been no deep, thoughtful re-making or re-evaluation of atomic technology. No solution to the nuke waste problem. No making reactors economically sound. No private insurance against radioactive disasters by terror or error. No grassroots citizens now desperate to live near fragile containment domes and outtake pipes spewing radioactive tritium at 27 US reactors.
No, nothing about atomic energy has really changed.
Except this: $645 million spent on lobbying and media manipulation.
That's a minimum estimate on how much the Nuclear Energy Institute and its fellow reactor backers have spent in the past decade to sell the public on nukes and grab taxpayer money to build them, as compiled by Judy Pasternak and a team of reporters at American University's Investigative Reporting Workshop.
Think AIG and Goldman Sachs gone radioactive.
Think $64.5 million, just for political arm twisting and media bloviation, every year since the coming of George W. Bush.
That's $1 million per every US Senator and Representative, plus another, say $100 million for the White House, courts and media.
Noam Chomsky's "manufacturing consent" is now just "outright purchase."
How has National Public Radio become Nuclear Proliferation Redux? Think: corporate sponsorships.
Why does weekend host Scott Simon grovel at Steward Brand's radioactive feet? Count the dollar signs.
How can disgraced ex-Greenpeacer Patrick Moore (who also sells clear-cut forests and genetically modified food) shill for new reactors? Examine the check stubs.
This is not to say all reactor advocates do it for the money. Certainly some have grown on their own to like nuke power.
But $645 million -- Six Hundred Forty-Five Million -- buys a lot of opinion going one way, and suppresses a lot going the other. Op-eds, air time, "independent" reports, phony claims that "green" nukes can solve global warming ... not to mention campaign "donations," fact-finding junkets, political fundraisers, K-Street dinners ... all can be had for a trifling drip from a $645M slush fund.
The first payback came this week, delivered by Barack Obama. The president promised $8.33 billion in loan guarantees for two new nukes proposed in Georgia, where two old ones came in at 3000% over budget, and where the Nuclear Regulatory Commission warns the proposed new ones might crumble in an earthquake or hurricane.
As Juan Gonzalez of Democracy Now! points out, Team Obama has taken very large chunks of that $600 million from Chicago's nuke-loving Exelon. Quickly trashing those slick campaign promises for a green power revolution, his first two named advisors, David Axelrod and Rahm Emmanuel, were proud Exelon "associates."
Now the ObamaMafia wants taxpayers to pony up $36 billion more in loan guarantees. (John McCain wants a mere trillion).
All this has gone down before the US Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people who can spend without limit to buy Congress and the media. The cash pouring into the pockets of politicians voting for still more taxpayer money to build still more reactors will parallel the gusher of radiation that poured from Chernobyl.
Does this mean the flood of new reactors is inevitable?
NO!
In the face of that $645 million cash tsunami, grassroots activists still stopped $50 billion in loan guarantees three times since 2007. No new US reactor construction has started since the 1970s, when public opinion was over 70% in favor of atomic power, and Richard Nixon promised 1000 US reactors by the year 2000.
With green jobs advocate Van Jones ditched and Obama now openly in the nuclear camp, atomic energy is still a loser.
It can't solve its waste problems, can't operate without leaking radiation, can't pay for itself and can't get private insurance against terror or error. Once hyped as "too cheap to meter," Warren Buffett, the National Taxpayers Union, the Heritage Foundation and the CATO Institute are among those joining the Congressional Budget Office in warning that atomic energy is really "too expensive to matter."
The reactor backers will respond with all the hundreds of millions they think they need. But they're still selling a technological corpse. With licensing and construction and the inevitable unforeseen, not one new US reactor can come on line in less than seven years.
At lot can happen between now and then. Most importantly, renewable/efficiency prices will continue to plummet. And grassroots opposition will not stop. As Abe Lincoln reminds us: you can't buy all the people all the time, and the ones that can't be bought, can be damn powerful.
Those loan guarantees, those new nukes, all that hype about a returning nuclear age ... they are not a done deal. They still must withstand a Solartopian revolution in green technology that has left reactors in their economic dust ... and a human species whose core instincts demand economic and ecological survival.
So when you hear some hired gun selling nukes, remember: even $645 million can only buy so much green lipstick for a dead radioactive pig.
And when Nature bats last, the final score is not about cash.
Harvey Wasserman's SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH is at www.harveywasserman.com, along with HARVEY WASSERMAN'S HISTORY OF THE US. He is Senior Advisor to Greenpeace USA and the Nuclear Information & Resource Service.
Skip the nuke lies, check my comments and profile for PROOF. Solar wind and bio fuels are cheaper than nukes, and even fossil in some cases. .
"Solar technology, he said, will have to get five times better than it is today, and scientists will need to find new types of plants that require little energy to grow and that can be converted to clean and cheap alternatives to fossil fuels." Said Dr. Chu in the NY Times.
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/c/steven_chu/index.html
Dr Chu, is Obamas DOE Chief. And unlike Al Gore, Dr Chu is a PhD in PHYSICS and a Nobel Prize winner in PHYSICS, Google Dr. Chu’s many interviews.
Or this from NY Times. Even paying people 4 times as much for solar, since 1991, solar still accounts for half of one percent of their power.
“Germany, for example, a homeowner with a rooftop solar system may be paid four times more to produce electricity than the rate paid to a coal-fired power plant.â€
“Germany, where feed-in tariffs have been in place since 1991, has about five times as many photovoltaic panels installed as the United States, though they still account for only 0.5 percent of electricity in that country.â€
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/business/energy-environment/13solar.html
Here is the proof of that:
rooftop pf install systems for less than 2$ 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/
If, in FACT, solar, wind and biofuels were really cheaper, we would not need a “carbon taxâ€, or “cap and tradeâ€.
We would not need huge subsidies for biofuels, wind and solar in the US.
If people could REALLY could put a solar system on their home and SAVE MONEY, compared to grid power, they would. You want to really know their cost, google: “home solar systemsâ€. Why do you think the solar industry almost collapsed when we had a brief period of expired federal subsides?
Why do Nuclear Plants only get “loan guarantees†but wind, solar and biofuels get “direct CASH SUBSIDIESâ€? There is a huge difference in “loan guarantees†and “direct cash subsidiesâ€. Loan guarantees only work in a business that is profitable because they have to be paid back. Direct cash subsidies are required when a business is “known to be unprofitable†and are never paid back.
People always choice the lowest cost commodity, that is in fact the purpose of cap and trade, so if solar, wind, and biofuels were really cheaper, we would need no “climate talks†or “international climate agreementsâ€.
We all know this right?
Green needs protection from the Status quo companies.
cap and tax, and
subsides,
you bet.
btw, just like fossils and nukes have gotten for decades.
from the NRC, you trust them, right???
"Within a short time, the presence of a large hydrogen bubble in the dome of the pressure vessel, the container that holds the reactor core, stirred new worries. The concern was that the hydrogen bubble might burn or even explode and rupture the pressure vessel. In that event, the core would fall into the containment building and perhaps cause a breach of containment."
and France nukes are safe and clean:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12938722 France has very high radiation type cancers rates.
25 cent per kwh nukes 9$ per W average. http://energyeconomyonline.com/uploads/Is_New_Nuclear_Competitive_July_10_2009_FNS_Event.pdf
25 cents per KWH for new Nuclear.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/05/study-cost-risks-new-nuclear-power-plants/
10$ per W nuclear minimum.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/15/nuclear-power-plant-cost-bombshell-ontario/
They like to say there is no connection between power and bombs, even though the uranium cycle was used BECAUSE IT MAKE BOMB MATERIAL.
More links of CANDU to http://www.wmdinsights.com/I26/I26_G6_CanNuclearParadox.htmx.htm
And unlike Al Gore, Dr Chu is a PhD in PHYSICS and a Nobel Prize winner in PHYSICS, Google Dr. Chu’s many interviews.
I believe in a debate such as this, the words of a PhD in physics and Nobel Prize winner in physics have merit.
If your in a car crash and bleeding to death, do you want to be taken to a “Doctor†of Medicine in a hospital, or to an “author†who once wrote a book on natural healing, or an “actor†who played a Doctor in a movie???
You need to keep up with current events.
Dr. Chu, Obama's Energy Dept. Head is telling us it is NOT “Coal†or “wind and solarâ€, it’s Coal or Nuclear, Solar and wind can only be 20-25% without storage, and cost 5 times more than coal or nuclear.
Dr Chu, Obama’s Energy Czar, said “the new generation of nuclear reactors will be significantly safer than those built during the 1970s because of improvements in technology. This time around, the industry and regulators have streamlined licensing and are planning to use a standard design.â€
And unlike Al Gore, Dr Chu is a PhD in PHYSICS and a Nobel Prize winner in PHYSICS, Google Dr. Chu’s many interviews.
Nuclear power is insane, developed for weapons, with need to know, secrecy, proliferation, million year waste and dirty bomb bred in.
25 cents per KWH for new Nuclear.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/05/study-cost-risks-new-nuclear-power-plants/
10$ per W nuclear minimum.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/15/nuclear-power-plant-cost-bombshell-ontario/
7 cent per KWH solar
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/04/solar-power-breakthroughs-sunrgi-7.html
Wind 7 cents per KWH
Solar PV 11 cents
http://www.nrel.gov/director/pdfs/milken_sandia_102307_final.pdf
panels for 1$ Wp new.
25 cent per kwh nukes 9$ per W average. http://energyeconomyonline.com/uploads/Is_New_Nuclear_Competitive_July_10_2009_FNS_Event.pdf
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 (scientists not actors).
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/19758
With an obvious million year unsolved gton deadly waste problem?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/12/bill-gates-ted-speech-201_n_461034.html
Solar is good in the South on hot sunny days for AC, but not useful in the North for Heat on Cold nights.
The truth is for the next 100 years or so our choice is Coal or Nuclear for at least 70% of our power and most of our 24/7 baseline power
Why do you think Obama is for “clean coal†and Nuclear? Because 50% (20% Nuclear today) of our electricity comes from coal, switching to Nuclear would raise it a little, switching it to wind and solar, not possible without storage anyway, would mean electric bills 5 TIMES HIGHER THAN TODAY! He dosen’t have any politically viable choice. People cannot pay electric bills higher than their rent or mortgage.
Dr. Chu, Obama’s Energy Dept Head, was asked since solar is now a proven technolgy why are utilities not putting up millions of them. His response, “the price of solar would have to fall by a factor of 5 to 10 for that to happenâ€. Google his interviews.
Even people in the solar industry, the true believers of the true believers, don’t see the systems getting much cheaper in the near future because building solar cells has already become a commodity industry. They take a fixed amount of raw materials and the price of those raw materials is not falling and in some cases, like rare earth elements, is rising.
Page 16, list the installed cost from 2$ to 20$.
Notice that
35% of the system cost 7-8$
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$
2$ per wP work out to about 3 cents per KWH as an investment over 30 years.
Since someone sat on my comment the first time, here's me trying again.
First, the coinage of your word, solartopia, says something about the feasibility of your project. 'Utopia' means 'noplace'.
Second, you're incorrect that nothing about nuclear energy has really changed. Lots has changed since the 60s. Here's a short list: Th fuels, Pu disposal, small reactor designs, liquid fuel reactor designs, hardened designs (like Areva's EPR, which can shrug off attacks), etc. It's not an accurate claim.
Third, your claim of $645 million, while it may be accurate, has no context. What did Big Oil spend? What did Big Ethanol spend? What did Big Solar (yes, I think we are getting there) spend? Until there is context, that claim doesn't mean much.
Fourth, you allege, without proof, that nuclear is not green. If you were being fair in this piece, you'd note that there is disagreement on this score. For example, I am an environmentalist, and I support nuclear power, and I am not the only one.
So we need wind and solar now. Yet basic hurdles like intermittancy and low energy density remain. Neither sun nor wind are available 24/7/365, begetting costly power smoothing and storage issues. Ground-based plants need hundreds of times more acreage than high energy density coal or nuclear, constraining sites and increasing transmission costs. Passive solar w/ conservation is cheap enough, but active rooftop solar still isn't, despite all claims.
http://www.withouthotair.com/download.html
Is there a potential work-around?
Yes, the JET STREAM. Jet stream winds are more continuous and far more powerful. Power scales with wind speed cubed! Mean speed for ground-based wind turbines is ~15 knots. 120 knots is typical for the jet stream. So, a speed gain of 120/15 = 8 becomes a power gain of (8 x 8 x 8)/3 = ~170 - high energy density! The factor of 3 drop is from lower stratospheric air density, but is regained via steadier winds.
How to tap that power? An optimal design for economy/durability/safety/stability/efficiency may not exist yet. But test systems use high-tech kites, balloons, or kytoon hybrids.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_wind_turbine
www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=kites+%22wind+energy%22&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=1&cad=b
Implementation may be "up in the air", but seems a significant possibility.
Coal is green.
How to stop the pro nuke pr people???
They post here repeating old lies endlessly.
The whole conservative movement was founded to destroy the enlightenment and democracy.
They do everything they can to shut down reason, and confuse people.
Most people, thanks to conservatives cuts in education, are not able to do the research and do math themselves, so they are easy prey for the propagandists.
Are Americans simply too ignorant and brainwashed to reason? And have they been emotionally programmed to take that statement as an insult?
I put my entire pro green argument on my profile with links, but how many people who have been convinced by Beck and the pro nuke conservatives emotionalism will bother to try to understand?
Our Government is not the Liberal Democratic Republic the Founders wanted, but a bought and paid for plutocracy.
Till we outlaw all political contributions as they bribery they are and mandate free air time for all the candidate, we, the People, will descend further into serfdom.
Till we break up the monopolies and regulate the economy and business, the very nature of our intellectual discourse will be perverted to sales.
But none of that can happen if the people, the citizens don't wake up and think and study.
Please cheer my up with some good news.
Monopoly- 1: exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply or concerted action. 2: exclusive ownership or control. 3: a commodity controlled by one party.
Cartel- 1: a written agreement between belligerant nations. 2: a combination of independent commercial or industrial enterprises designed to limit competition or fix prices.
Moral of that story is, don't eliminate nuclear as part of the solution until you have a definite alternative to replace it. And, please don't just say wind and solar can do it all. Until there is a comprehensive national plan for providing all the power needs with renewables, we should not put complete faith in their abilities to solve our energy problems.
Solar
and
Waste and non food Bio Fuels
Can supply all the energy we need, 24/7, clean, safe, forever.
See my profile for proof.
links disprove
that wind, solar
and biofeuls
can replace the energy
that we use today.
Why do you type like that? Do you think it makes you more creditable?
Those same people love point to France and say SEE, the French only have 1/3 the carbon footprint per person of an American, so we should do better. Then turn around and fight any new nuclear plants in the US. Obama’s DOE Head Dr. Chu, said wind and solar cannot supply over 20-25% without storage.and cost 5 times more. And unlike Al Gore, Dr Chu is a PhD in PHYSICS and a Nobel Prize winner in PHYSICS, Google Dr. Chu’s many interviews. It is NOT “Coal†or “wind and solarâ€, it’s Coal or Nuclear.
We need about ten Manhattan Projects running in parallel to find the miracles to make renewables competitive with fossil, even if we have significant carbon taxes. And then more years and many $Trillions to transition the energy infrastructure to renewables. While we wait, should we burn uranium or coal? Pick your poison. That is the new inconvenient truth, and I prefer uranium.
What we need is to push forward many different avenues at once, while at the same time taking aggressive strides to use what is best of what we have now.
In a word: nuclear.
1) The one problem with 10 Manhattans is that if we are really talking MP scale, then we are talking north of $1 trillion each, which, from memory, is what MP #1 cost. The political feasibility of a $10 trillion clean energy push right now is . . . well, let's say it looks distant.
2) Fanned. :)
Yes nuclear power is way to expensive.
You can take solar panel energy and make it into HYDROXY GAS.
You can burn hydroxy in your car.
Hydroxy gas burns in all propane apliances.
In NH VT & ME we are being chemtrailed twice a week.
Send your pictures too nhchemtrails AT yahoo DOT com