During President Obama's recent State of the Union speech, Congress applauded as the President announced his intention to expand "safe and clean" nuclear power. The following week the president proposed an additional $54 billion in loan guarantees to the already heavily subsidized nuclear industry.
It seems that the Obama Administration and Congress have miraculously discovered the cure for radiation-induced cancer, the solution for long term safe storage of nuclear waste and the secure containment of nuclear materials from theft or terrorist attack at nuclear power plants. It's more likely that the president and Congress are poised to dangerously repeat the same costly mistakes of the past at the expense of public health and safety and national security.
Nuclear fission is a by-product of the Manhattan Project which developed enriched uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons. After the dubious distinction of becoming the only country in the world to use atomic weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki Japan, whether through guilt, blind faith or both, President Eisenhower proposed commercial nuclear power and the "Peaceful Atom" program.
Because nuclear energy is anything but "clean and safe," utilities refused to accept the risks without legal indemnification and almost total government underwriting.
In 1957 Congress enacted the Price Anderson Act, limiting utility liability in the event of a major nuclear accident. Hence the "Nuclear Exclusion Clause" on every insurance policy you've purchased. If that's not disconcerting enough, Congress also gave utilities huge economic "protections" including a generous guaranteed rate of return on investment. Further, in 1982 Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act obligating the taxpayer to underwrite all costs associated with managing, storing and safeguarding nuclear waste. Today there are 104 commercial nuclear reactors in the US with several of the oldest and "dirtiest" plants located in New England. The Associated Press recently reported that 27 of the 104 reactors are leaking potentially dangerous levels of carcinogenic radioactive tritium into local groundwater supplies. Pilgrim Nuclear Plant in Plymouth, MA and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant in Vernon, VT are among the nuclear plants with leaking reactors.
Incredibly President Obama and even some "environmentalists" are promoting "safe and clean" nuclear energy as a solution to everything from climate change to Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. There are legitimate reasons why Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush I and Clinton all refused to proliferate new nuclear plants. Only Bush II, considered nuclear energy expansion, that is, until Sept 11, 2001 when al Qaeda terrorists flew past 12 nuclear plants from Boston to New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. The use of airplanes as missiles brought home the reality that al Qaeda could have caused a nuclear nightmare had they targeted nuclear plants instead of the devastating but largely symbolic attack on our financial, military and government institutions. According to national security experts who interrogated al Qaeda terrorists after the 2001 attacks, when asked why they didn't attack nuclear facilities, they simply said "not this time." Al Qaeda has also said that they want to kill millions of Americans. Given the close proximity of several nuclear plants to urban areas including the Indian Point Nuclear Plant near New York City, that goal could be easily achieved with well placed conventional explosives or an airplane.
Nuclear technology has not substantially improved since the late 1970's when the last reactors were proposed. All that has changed are the unsolved problems have grown worse. Existing nuclear plants are more contaminated, more dangerous, less efficient and much more susceptible to nuclear terrorism and environmental catastrophe.
There is also the critical nagging issue of nuclear waste. Recently the Department of Energy canceled funding for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, the only potential long term storage facility identified to date in the US. After 50 years of research and hundreds of billions in direct subsidies, the nuclear industry can still find no viable long term solution to nuclear waste storage. Highly radioactive nuclear waste including plutonium laced spent fuel rods are being stored in cooling ponds designed for short term use at nuclear plant sites. Plutonium has a half life of 24,000 years, a millionth of a gram causes cancer in laboratory animals, and just 10 pounds is enough to make a powerful nuclear weapon.
The risks from nuclear power begin with uranium mining where tailings can contaminate groundwater, air and soils. Then follows the increased cancer risk to uranium miners, nuclear plant workers and neighbors living near nuclear facilities. Finally we must consider the inevitable devastating impacts of a major nuclear accident like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, or countless other nuclear "incidents" in the US and around the world over the past 50 years. The proliferation of "dangerous and dirty" nuclear power is simply not worth the devastating costs to public health and the environment or the extraordinary endless costs to the American taxpayer.
Nuclear power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Every time you see one of those Al Gore commercials that says we need to reduce our reliance on foreign oil and then show a windmill turning, most American realize what a joke that is. ALL the science tells us that in the near future our only choice is Nuclear or coal. To oppose Nuclear power is to ignore real science and extends our reliance on green house gas producing power sources. Either support Nuclear or quite complaining about using coal. Even Obama’s energy chief realizes this. France and Japan get most of their electricity from Nuclear with NO PROBLEMS.
Charles also say that 1000 years of deadly waste,
is a good thing.,
really.
“Clean” is an easy one. It dose not spew its waste into the air. The very fact that submarines can operate underwater with Nuclear power should tell you that. Try staying underwater with a burning coal plant.
Green of course refers to CO2 emissions, so if reducing CO2 emissions is “green” it is hard to argue nuclear is not green.
Renewable refers to both recycling the fuel and new much more common fuels like Thorium. So it could certainly last many hundreds of years, much longer than oil or coal.
Solar rooftop pv is less expensive than nukes.
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/
To this guy, "leveling the playing field" for his solar project means a 90% subsidy. And it will still take 5 years to pay the money back.
I could have skipped much of the commentary from Rod, but the on-point stuff is devastating.
But as a result of your actions, you do not.
If you want to reduce radiation exposure, then build more nuclear plants and close coal plants. A coal plant releases 100 times the radiation of a Nuclear plant.
Releases in 1982 from worldwide combustion of 2800 million tons of coal totaled 3640 tons of uranium (containing 51,700 pounds of uranium-235) and 8960 tons of thorium. The population gets 100 times more radiation from a coal plant than from a nuclear plant. So in 2004 by burning 4.6 billions tons of coal, we released 5980 tons of uranium into the air and 14720 tons of Thorium.
This is like 80 truck size dirty nuclear bombs releasing 1 ton of radioactive material every day.
A Chernobyl twice a week.
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2006/10/coal-chernobyl-twice-week-and-coal-9.html
Coal ash that contains arsenic, beryllium, chromium, lead, and mercury. are leached into groundwater from it's storage in coal ash "surface impoundments." Impoundments which are in fact are no more or less than big holes in the ground that remain open to rainfall from above and water seepage from below.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rena-steinzor/oiras-time-is-up-on-coal_b_460678.html
all the waste must be assumed to leak into the
environment
over the million years they will be
deadly.
all the lead acid must be assumed to leak into the
environment
over the million years they will be
deadly.
Dr Chu, Obamas 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.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/16/obama-nuclear-plant-presi_n_463754.html
"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.
you can't
he's never written one.
"Clean" and too cheap to meter. we remember your nukes industry lies.
The nukes power industry grow out of the bomb industry. That's why the Uranium once through cycle was adopted: it makes the best bomb material.
Nuke power industry has inherited all of the bad habits of the nuclear bomb projects: secrecy, deception, disregard for the safety of civilians, and a war desperation mentality that will risk the Apocalypse to keep their program running.
Nukes failed during deadly heatwave: 15,000 deaths in France, 32,000 all of Europe.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2003-09-25-france-heat_x.htm
http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/plan_b_updates/2003/update29
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/jul/30/energy.weather
http://www.publiccitizen.org/documents/HotNukesFactsheet.pdf
coal ash not deadly like nuke http://www.acaa-usa.org/
So reactors kill 1/12 as many people as coal does which is estimated to thousands?
But you pro nukes said NOT ONE PERSON, you lied.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0952-4746/18/1/005
Cancer: http://www.tapcanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/tap_fact_sheet1.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12938722 France has very high radiation type cancers rates.
Research as usual has NO FACTS.
Nuclear is way cleaner than coal and Obama knows it.
As Bill Gates pointed out at the TED conference (Gates, “we could power the entire US for 100 years by burning the nuclear waste we have today in Thorium reactors”
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.
I'll save you the trouble. from the thorium power web site
Thorium fuel:
7. How does Lightbridge’s seed and blanket fuel technology affect the amount and radio-toxicity of spent fuel?
1. Lightbridge’s seed and blanket fuel technology reduces the amount and long-term radio-toxicity of used (spent) fuel.
i. Reduces volume of used fuel by almost 50% and the weight of used fuel by about 70% compared to standard uranium fuel12.
2. Lightbridge’s seed and blanket fuel technology reduces the long-term radio-toxicity (after the first 200-300 years) of used fuel by about 90% compared to standard uranium fuel13.
http://www.ltbridge.com/assets/Lightbridge%20Technical%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf
That's as good as your thorium magical reactor fuel can do,
still deadly for longer the any civilization has existed.
"Lightbridge’s seed and blanket fuel technology reduces the long-term radio-toxicity (after the first 200-300 years) of used fuel by about 90% compared to standard uranium fuel13"
All great things, guess your all for thorium.
How can you not say its better?
"Further, in 1982 Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act obligating the taxpayer to underwrite all costs associated with managing, storing and safeguarding nuclear waste."
The US taxpayers are not underwriting the costs of the NWPA. A simple Google search would have proven to Mr. Rosenthal that the utilities are funding the NWPA through a one mill per kilowatt-hour of nuclear energy generated as stated in section 301 and 302 of the NWPA. Military waste is being handled separately as it should.
It is these provisions that are allowing the utlities to successfully sue the DOE for recovery of money paid into the funds to offset on-site storage.
An excellent article that rebuts Mr. Rosenthal’s post was written by Rod Adams at Atomic Insights.
http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2010/02/fighting-words-from-john-e-rosenthal.html
The 1 cent per kwh doesn't even come close to paying for it.
never mind the cities lost to dirty bombs.
Solar wind and Bio Fuels are already cheaper than nukes.
see my comments above or my profile.
You do not seem to realize that everyone wants cheap energy and will use the cheapest source available. That’s the whole purpose of cap and trade, to make the sources you are talking about cheaper than coal by basically raising the price of coal. If the sources you say are cheaper really were, we would not need cap and trade or anything else to get people to use them.
You have been shown time after time by many posters over the past few months that rooftop solar prices out at about $6-8/kw depending on the section of country. You have also been shown that rooftop solar will not magically solve our future energy needs. Yet you continue to ignore that data while turning around to manipulate the solar cost numbers to make your point, which is no different than the strategies employed by several Republican oriented talking heads on Faux News.
I obviously can't stop you from replying to my comments nor can I stop you from your anti-nuclear hyperbole. But it sure would be interesting to actually see if you could debate the points without hyperbole, not try to get everyone to pay attention to your profile.
You pick.
Just kidding, this video refutes all the arguments of both the actor and the real estate manager with with humor, in 5 minutes, 31 seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Usg7-xbQOcM&NR=1
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/12/04/big_solar_statement_for_fenway_center/?page=full
You wrote:
Nuclear technology has not substantially improved since the late 1970's when the last reactors were proposed. All that has changed are the unsolved problems have grown worse. Existing nuclear plants are more contaminated, more dangerous, less efficient and much more susceptible to nuclear terrorism and environmental catastrophe.
This is simply wrong, and you don't impress anyone with writing like that, unless they 1) already agree with you and 2) don't do any research.
In general, I have found HuffPo's bloggers to be shockingly ill-informed on this topic.
Nuclear power is just a piece of a bigger solution of green energy jobs. If we have to give a little to the republicans, so be it.....for now.
Perhaps when the waste at Hanford in Washington State eventually leaches into the Columbia River and then into the Pacific then all will realize how clean it is.
it is clear O will say anything in order to appease.
Would not want to piss off the nuclear energy cartel.
If that were true, and were the only benefit of reprocessing, it would not be worthwhile. Nuclear powerplant waste is not forever. Most of their energy is freed right away, but not all. For each watt of right-now power, there is, according to Untermeyer and Weill's formula,
0.0397 watts delayed 1 minute or more,
0.0040 watts delayed 1 week or more,
0.00017 watts delayed 100 years or more,
These are maxima that are reached after infinite time, closely approached after many times the delay period. The formula is
0.1*((t+10)^(-0.2) -0.87*(t + 20000000)^(-0.2))
where 't' is the delay time in seconds.
Although small, this radioactivity is uncontrollable, like the Earth's internal radioactivity. Down to 1 km depth, on land, the latter is 250 billion watts.
Does that mean only 250 GW -- thermal! -- of nuclear power, ~90 GW electrical, only a quarter of what already exists, will double the top kilometre's radioactivity?
No, because it's only the small uncontrollable bit that can fairly be compared to the Earth's radioactivity. Say we want the radioactivity in the top km to be 99 percent natural (the 250 GW), and only 1 percent man-made, only 2.5 GW, even after many centuries.
That 2.5 GW is 0.00017 of the above-ground power, which therefore is 14700 GW, about 14 times more than exists today.