For more than 100 years, coal has been the backbone of the Appalachian economy. Even today, the economies of more than 20 states depend to some degree on the mining of coal. About half of all the electricity generated in America and about one quarter of all the energy consumed globally is generated by coal.
Change is no stranger to the coal industry. Think of the huge changes which came with the onset of the Machine Age in the late 1800's. Mechanization has increased coal production and revenues, but also has eliminated jobs, hurting the economies of coal communities. In 1979, there were 62,500 coal miners in the Mountain State. Today there are about 22,000. In recent years, West Virginia has seen record high coal production and record low coal employment.
And change is undeniably upon the coal industry again. The increased use of mountaintop removal mining means that fewer miners are needed to meet company production goals. Meanwhile the Central Appalachian coal seams that remain to be mined are becoming thinner and more costly to mine. Mountaintop removal mining, a declining national demand for energy, rising mining costs and erratic spot market prices all add up to fewer jobs in the coal fields.
These are real problems. They affect real people. And West Virginia's elected officials are rightly concerned about jobs and the economic impact on local communities. I share those concerns. But the time has come to have an open and honest dialogue about coal's future in West Virginia.
Let's speak the truth. The most important factor in maintaining coal-related jobs is demand for coal. Scapegoating and stoking fear among workers over the permitting process is counter-productive.
Coal companies want a large stockpile of permits in their back pockets because that implies stability to potential investors. But when coal industry representatives stir up public anger toward federal regulatory agencies, it can damage the state's ability to work with those agencies to West Virginia's benefit. This, in turn, may create the perception of ineffectiveness within the industry, which can drive potential investors away.
Let's speak a little more truth here. No deliberate effort to do away with the coal industry could ever succeed in Washington because there is no available alternative energy supply that could immediately supplant the use of coal for base load power generation in America. That is a stubborn fact that vexes some in the environmental community, but it is reality.
It is also a reality that the practice of mountaintop removal mining has a diminishing constituency in Washington. It is not a widespread method of mining, with its use confined to only three states. Most members of Congress, like most Americans, oppose the practice, and we may not yet fully understand the effects of mountaintop removal mining on the health of our citizens. West Virginians may demonstrate anger toward the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over mountaintop removal mining, but we risk the very probable consequence of shouting ourselves out of any productive dialogue with EPA and our adversaries in the Congress.
Some have even suggested that coal state representatives in Washington should block any advancement of national health care reform legislation until the coal industry's demands are met by the EPA. I believe that the notion of holding the health care of over 300 million Americans hostage in exchange for a handful of coal permits is beyond foolish; it is morally indefensible. It is a non-starter, and puts the entire state of West Virginia and the coal industry in a terrible light.
To be part of any solution, one must first acknowledge a problem. To deny the mounting science of climate change is to stick our heads in the sand and say "deal me out." West Virginia would be much smarter to stay at the table.
The 20 coal-producing states together hold some powerful political cards. We can have a part in shaping energy policy, but we must be honest brokers if we have any prayer of influencing coal policy on looming issues important to the future of coal like hazardous air pollutants, climate change, and federal dollars for investments in clean coal technology.
Most people understand that America cannot meet its current energy needs without coal, but there is strong bi-partisan opposition in Congress to the mountaintop removal method of mining it. We have our work cut out for us in finding a prudent and profitable middle ground - but we will not reach it by using fear mongering, grandstanding and outrage as a strategy. As your United States Senator, I must represent the opinions and the best interests of the entire Mountain State, not just those of coal operators and southern coalfield residents who may be strident supporters of mountaintop removal mining.
I have spent the past six months working with a group of coal state Democrats in the Senate, led by West Virginia native Senator Tom Carper (D-Del.), drafting provisions to assist the coal industry in more easily transitioning to a lower-carbon economy. These include increasing funding for clean coal projects and easing emission standards and timelines, setting aside billions of dollars for coal plants that install new technology and continue using coal. These are among the achievable ways coal can continue its major role in our national energy portfolio. It is the best way to step up to the challenge and help lead change.
The truth is that some form of climate legislation will likely become public policy because most American voters want a healthier environment. Major coal-fired power plants and coal operators operating in West Virginia have wisely already embraced this reality, and are making significant investments to prepare.
The future of coal and indeed of our total energy picture lies in change and innovation. In fact, the future of American industrial power and our economic ability to compete globally depends on our ability to advance energy technology.
The greatest threats to the future of coal do not come from possible constraints on mountaintop removal mining or other environmental regulations, but rather from rigid mindsets, depleting coal reserves, and the declining demand for coal as more power plants begin shifting to biomass and natural gas as a way to reduce emissions.
Fortunately, West Virginia has a running head-start as an innovator. Low-carbon and renewable energy projects are already under development in West Virginia, including: America's first integrated carbon capture and sequestration project on a conventional coal-fired power plant in Mason County; the largest wind power facility in the eastern United States; a bio-fuel refinery in Nitro; three large wood pellet plants in Fayette, Randolph, and Gilmer Counties; and major dams capable of generating substantial electricity.
Change has been a constant throughout the history of our coal industry. West Virginians can choose to anticipate change and adapt to it, or resist and be overrun by it. One thing is clear. The time has arrived for the people of the Mountain State to think long and hard about which course they want to choose.
There really is no contest. The age of coal is long past it's death date.
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/mar2007/gb20070321_923592.htm?chan=globalbiz_europe_more+of+today's+top+stories
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/policy/germanys-green-energy-gap/0
See the graph of Germany's Electric Power generation:
http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/DEELEC.pdf
See the tiny little red line on top - that's your Solar & Wind, with Feed-in-tariffs of 60 cents per kwh for Solar and 20 cents per kwh for Wind, plus Power Transmission paid by the Public plus up to $300 million for 15 yrs of credit per project. Note that almost all electric power generation comes from the zero effort Nuclear, or GHG belching sources.
See the graph of France's Electric Power generation.
http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/FRELEC.pdf
Note almost all Electricity from Nuclear, also Hydro, almost all Green Sources.
Result:
Germany's Carbon intensity = 601 gm CO2 per kwh
France's Carbon intensity = 83 gm CO2 per kwh
See:
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/cI/page_335.shtml
Cost of Wind Energy produced in Germany in 2005 (just the FIT’s) 15 cents per kwh.
Cost of Nuclear Energy in France, baseload, 3.9 cents per kwh
Nuclear power can't get insurance.
Nuclear power cost 25 cents per kWH. not including the infinity for insurance, dirty bombs and nuclear war. not including the quadrillions in poisoned land for a million years.
Chernobyl's electricity costs a million dollar per KWH? What's your estimate?
billions of subsides for decades for coal oil and nukes, that continue today, and you wonder why solar is still a small percentage of generated energy. wow.
http://www.iea.org/
yet you complain about MIT and New Scientist as sources. wow.
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/05/07/was-enron-green/
How environmentalists sold out to help Enron;
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2003Q3/enviros.html
alvdh1, has still refused to show any viable, green alternative to Nuclear Power. He spouts off about energy efficiency, but gives no examples and no numbers.
Let's keep it simple, since you love the California system of manufactured Energy Scarcity, tell us how you would supply California's 25 - 40 Gw of demand with Green sources.
You also don't have one example of anywhere that your pro-fossil Fuel SCAM has actually worked.
I can certainly supply an example, right here:
France swapped out Oil and Coal for Nuclear in 20 yrs, with a modest build, using a run-of-the-mill US design, modified it and standardized it. Electrify their transportation sector, build a few more Nuclear plants, maybe add some Nuclear CHP and some small Hyperion type reactors and JOB DONE! Compare the change of Nuclear France’s electricity supply to Denmark’s. Denmark, with the highest electricity prices in Europe, and the highest emissions in Europe of 881 gm’s CO2 per kwh of electricity generated. Nuclear France is the lowest at 83 gms CO2 per kwh generated:
http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/FRELEC.pdf
http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/DKELEC.pdf
What does your diatribe have to do with Items 1 through 6 except ignoring the questions because it is easier to rant than discuss or in this case answer the simple questions.
I have offered numerous numbers on energy efficiency. I will be glad to repeat them to you. Current U.S. electricity capacity from all sources is approximately 1,000,000 million megawatts. We waste 64 percent of all of the electricity produced in the U.S. This represents 640,000 megawatts of power or 640 1,000 megawatt coal and nuclear power plants tht could teoretically be eliminated with energy efficiency. I am out of Huff words More to say though.
Ontario feed it tariffs of 80 cents a kwh for solar, 20 cents for wind when Ontario's nuclear power is less than 2 cent a kwh. Now that's math that makes sense to a green person.
Your list:
1: is nonsense. Distorted figures most of them made up or blown up well out of proportion.
2: - so what. It's you greenies with your coal plants that are spewing nearly 100% of radioactive emissions. Nukes store theirs as explained on this page.
3: You don't have a clue dude. Its called thermodynamics. Do you have some cost effective engineering design to use all steam byproduct for heating and cooling?
4 and 6: Answered several times on this page
5: Wall Street street pirates with their 15% interest rates would rather put their money into putting honest working Americans out of their houses and on to the street than financing nuclear plants - one word Shoreham. Greenpeace with its legions of Big Oil/Coal financed attorneys and politicians can trick investors into build a nuclear plant then use their homeys on the Nuclear Rejection Commission to shut it down because some local politician (green owned) withdraws his support.
Anything else?
1) March 23, 2009 Alternet Nuclear Article on the French Nuclear Power Disaster.
2) Will not provide a citable scientific study to refute Dr. John W. Gofman's scientific study on the biological effects of ionizing radiation that he conducted on behalf of the Atomic Energy Commission at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
3) Will not even mention energy efficiency and how it relates to the need or the lack thereof of the need for nuclear power.
4) Will not discuss or mention the cost overruns of the Areva nuclear power plant under construction in Finland - which is 50 percent over budget, 3 years behind schedule and the shoddy construction work as detailed in the May 28, 2009 New York Times article.
5) Will not, under any circumstance, explain why Wall Street will not invest a thin dime in nuclear power today or over the past 31 years.
6) Will not explain why the nuclear utility industry will not waive all of the liability limits set under the Price Anderson Act of 1957 if it is as safe as the industry claims.
If nuclear power is cracked up to be everything you claim, then these question should be easy to answer. By refusing to answer them, it becomes evident that selling the nuclear snake oil is more important than having a debate about the above issues.
Nuclear power in the US and Europe are now crippled by inefficient private power companies, biased Nuclear Rejection Commission's and corrupt and litigious political and legal systems, quadrupling nuclear costs and time frames compared to Asia. Greenpeace lawyers and Big Coal/Oil campaign donations have seen to it. Senator Byrd has promised to change that.
Actually because Greenpeace was so successful at replacing nukes with Big Coal power, they are responsible for the deaths of hundred of millions of people worldwide from lung disease and by causing global warming maybe the end of civilization and the deaths of billions.
France which has generated 80% of its electricity for nuclear for 40 years has a radioactive waste pile which would fill a soccer stadium one foot deep. That is about one weeks toxic radioactive output from a coal plant built to satisfy greenpeace's hatred of nukes.
440 Reactors worldwide X 1,000 Hiroshima size bombs = 440,000 Hiroshima size bombs every year that you are going to guarantee 100 percent containment on. I suppose the reason the waste only covers the size of a football field is because of the dumping in the English Channel, puttig it under parking lots at ski resorts and releasing it into the atmosphere. Your comment regarding Greenpeace exemplfies just how much you have left the world of reality. Greenpeace has never advocated the use of coal, but keep making it up as you go. You demonstrate an uncanny ability to invent information.
The insurance question I answered in a earlier comment.
Build a million windmills and give coal workers first crack at the jobs. Make them United Mine Workers Union jobs.
+
Wind has siting problems.
That will limit Wind somewhat.
There are still enough acceptable location for wind to produce plenty of energy.
rooftop 3 cent pv solar is great for the sunny regions, most people in the world live in.
Waste BioFuels work everywhere.
Together these energy source can provide all the energy and fuels the world needs, clean cheaper, safe and forever. See my profile for proof.
If you were truly concerned about America's economic, social and environmental health, you would work tirelessy to end the stranglehold GROR has on competition. Without competition, we will never end King Coals ruinous effect on the health of America. A deregulated market based on competition would nearly mirror the California Independent Service Operator (ISO) structure which recently received its last piece of the puzzle when the Governor signed the feed-in tarrif law this past September. The ISO owns the grid and buys power from all power producers in California at market rates based on supply and demand - including residential and business producers who place their excess capacity into the grid and they will receive a check every month beginning in January 2010.
Continued
The ISO model will reduce the demand on the grid and reduce grid transmission losses. Again, because more power will be consumed where it is produced. The money spent to expand the grid can be reduced or diverted to make the grid smarter. Small producers will also focus more on energy efficiency in order to maximixe their profits from selling more power into the grid. Conversely, GROR encourages businesses to waste energy because of steep utility discounts to large consumers. These discounts always come on the backs of ratepayers.
Mr Byrd, surely you are not opposed to competition. I am confident that you will work tirelessy to free Americans from the government sponsored utility oligopoly that promotes wasteful consumption of energy on the backs of ratepayers and taxpayers.
This is our future which doesn't resemble a modified status quo under the guise of the false claim of clean coal or nuclear for that fact. Why would we burn an ounce of coal to light an incandescent light bulb that uses 33% efficient power plants boiling water that transmit power over a grid system that loses 10 percent of the power from transmission losses to light an incandescent light bulb that converts 95% of the energy to heat and 5 % to light. Surely, we can do better than this Mr. Senator, much better.
You can talk down Coal all you want, but the only green substitute is Nuclear.
All California is going to do is import dirty electricity from outside the state.
Their electricity policy & political interference in the B.C. government is resulting in the Rape & Pillage of B.C. rivers, forests and wildlife in order to supply California with so-called renewable energy, an example of private power gone MAD, a complete Rip-Off to the B.C taxpayer, over the 3X the cost of the central B.C. public owned utility B.C. Hydro. See:
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2009/08/10/PrivatePower/
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2009/11/08/RafeMairEnergy/
Wind & Solar Thermal, which California is pushing, are examples of extreme centralization of power production. With power sources long distances away from consumers – and quadruple oversized power lines needed to transmit that power to consumers.
And they also conveniently ignore the long distance transport of NG to the local power plant. That’s not decentralized when you have to import your energy supply across thousands of miles and half way around the world from a tiny, politically unstable, area of the Middle East.
I disagree with your claim that there is no alternative to coal for base load power generation. Both nuclear and wind power have this capacity. The total wind capacity on the Offshore Continental Shelf is 1900 GW which close to twice the total energy capacity of the US.
Denmark has plans to shift 75% of energy production to wind. The wind power industry has generated more than 20000 jobs in Denmark.
Today would be the right time to invest in wind and nuclear and start retiring the coal power plants which are the main culprits for Global Warming.
Denmark only averages 10% of its electricity needs from Wind. The rest must be exported where it displaces cleaner & greener Hydro, in Norway mostly.
Denmark could not possibly produce 75% of its electricity, never mind energy, from Wind without relying on the large power grids outside Denmark to export power - at a huge loss.
Wind power is running over $12k per kwavg, for intermittent, unreliable power. Nuclear is easily going to come in at under $2k per kw, when large builds begin.
The failure of Danish Wind Energy:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/22/denmark-wind-experiment-awry/ - more-1886
The Bible on Danish Wind Energy:
http://www.cepos.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/Arkiv/PDF/Wind_energy_-_the_case_of_Denmark.pdf
Denmark is going to have to PAY other countries to take its Wind Energy. And if they try to balance their Wind Power with their CHP, they will produce excess Heat, not needed, in particular at peak load times around 5-8 pm when electricity usage supplants heat. Denmark’s Wind Special wouldn’t work if they couldn’t rely on other countries to accept the Wind Energy, without REALLY EXPENSIVE energy storage. And they still must import Nuclear Electricity from France.
Nukes are 4000$ per ave KW, add fuel cost, high maintenance costs, and quadrillions of dollar in waste disposal cost and nukes cost 25-30 cents per KWH.
But really Nuclear cost infinity. Yes infinity.
Nukes can't get insurance. Green plot? No.
Nukes lead to the end of all life on earth: Infinity.
Nukes create million year waste that will end up in dirty bombs and our water: nearly infinity.
Electricity from Chernobyl has costs millions of dollars per KWH.
Nuclear power is insane.
The large build is under way in Finland and it isn't a pretty picture under any scenario. The Areva next generation design was originally projected to cost $6,000,000,000 and is now 50 percent over budget and 3 years behind schedule. This is nearly identical to the track record for nuke construction in the U.S. during the 1970's. Guess what, you don't get to blame it on the environmentalists because the issue doesn't exist in Finland.
Every nuclear promise has turned out to be nothing more than a fanciful projection that bears no fruit in reality. Please explain this one away for us so we can understand how the times have changed. In addition, lets try something different going forward. Read my posts, then refute each point in detail using your own words without ignoring what I actually wrote. If you disagree with me, cite irrefutable scientific or economic evidence to counter what I have written instead of using references that are based on conjecture.
While you are trying to figure out how to respond, perhaps you could take a moment and think about the true reasons you want to pursue the nuclear power and put them into a detailed chain of thoughts making an irrefutable case for nukes.
As for permitting issues: why is Massey energy blowing up thousands of pounds of dynamite just 200 feet from their toxic sludge containment facility in the Coal River valley? When (not if!) the embankment cracks, there will be 200 people killed in seconds by a flood of sludge so toxic that no one will even be able to recover their bodies.
Now, as to alternate energy: if the state of West Virginia would quit blowing up those mountaintops, you could alleviate the unemployment with permanent jobs erecting and maintaining turbines to take advantage of the most abundant energy source there is: WIND POWER. But that's ONLY if you stop knocking down the mountains.
At least you seem to accept that Appalachia is long past the point of peak coal.
Natural Gas is plentiful enough in the US to surplant coal as a energy
producer if was mandated by government! and there is a plentiful supply!!!
Respectfully Senator Byrd, America must curtail the use of coal
over the next 10 years! why? 1) becaue there is no clean way to use
it! event the coal ash is a ecological problem 2) the coal fired power plants
across the US emit more green house gases than all the automobiles
in use in the United States! 3) Mountaintop removal leaves scars on the land
which are rarely if ever restored back to it's native condition!
So called plentiful natural gas is fracked out of the ground, and is incredible environmentally damaging.
BioGas can be made from organic wastes.
Rooftop Solar, Bio Fuels and wind can easily supply all the worlds energy and fuels the world will need, cleanly, cheaply, safe and forever.
Most coal plants can incorporate some fraction of biomass into their fuel supply without major modification, reducing coal mining and landfill waste.
In this way, we can gradually transition our existing coal plants over to biomass.
Also, we must not invest in "clean coal" projects based on carbon dioxide sequestration. Instead, we should invest in thermal depolymerization of biomass to oxygen-free hydrocarbons, which can then be gasified (Kvaerner process) to clean-burning hydrogen and storable solid carbon.
Waste is a resource. It's a lot easier to "mine" energy from landfills than it is from coal seams and gas shale. With proper emission control, we can burn biomass straight up. With more investment, we can burn it clean and return the carbon to the earth.
There's a thermal depolymerization plant in Arkansas that produces gasoline and diesel from the internal organs of turkeys. The biosphere is full of energy. We just need to get smart about using it.
Warmists believe we are less than ten years away from a civilization ending peak oil and climate crisis, but also believe we are too dependent on oil imports, and dirty and deadly coal power production which kills and sickens hundred's of millions of people worldwide, while Deniers will only agree that imports and pollution are problems.
A worldwide investment in 10000 new nuclear reactors would be paid for by and would end fossil fuel use, eliminate most air pollution saving millions of lives, end the global warming/ peak oil problem with a 100% elimination of GHG's within a ten year time frame, is a great investment making the economy more efficient, a wonderful job producing economy boost, requires only a small part of our industrial capacity, and pays for itself in three years.
Deniers and Warmists both could embrace it.
With mass production nuclear power costs drop to under $1B Gw much less expensive than coal or natural gas generation and 10% the cost of the cheapest renewable.
Nuclear fuel supply and waste issues are resolved with already operating and well understood fast reactors.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-kirsch/climate-bill-ignores-our_b_221796.html
Are your campaign donations so precious you are choosing ending civilization rather than get off Big Oil/Coal's gravy train.
All eixsting nuke power is 25-30 Cents operating cost per KWH, versus solar and green less than 6 cents.
No nuclear power plant can get insruance afainst the loss of a city,
So the Taxpayers do it.
The Nukes industry subsides alone, would finance their replacement with rooftop pv and waste biochar, clean safe cheaper and forever.
See my profile for proof.
The Future reactors don't exist and still produce bomb material.
Once through uranium will be gone in 80 years, 16 years if the all our electricity comes from it. Why do you think we are mining the Grand Canyon.
The Nuke industry has gigabucks to hire hacks to promote it.
Existing nuclear plants cost less than 2 cents a kwh. That's why they want to keep them running. Do see any owners trying to shut them down?
With new nuclear technology, the chance of a major nuclear accident is about the same as an giant asteroid striking the same city twice and a tiny fraction of the chances of an American Bhopal. You see anybody underwriting the Hoover Dam? Without legislation Greenpeace attorneys would be suing nuclear plants if an employee spilled his coffee - with American juries they' d win.
There are more subsidies for renewables these days than nukes. Are feed in tariffs of 50 cent a kwh for solar and 20 cents for wind huge subsidies or what.
Future reactors are not - future that is. They have been working all over the world and in the US in the past. They powered the deadly Soviet Alfa class attack subs for years. They are at this moment working in India, Russia, China and France.
Gen IV reactors could power the world replacing fossil fuels for the next several hundred years on existing nuclear waste. So could generation 3 machines like the AP-1000 reusing spend fuel rods. Read Kirsch for details.
Big Oil has many thousands of times the profit of the almost broke (but revived) nuclear industry. See Huffpo's James Hoggan for details on Big Oil disinformation campaigns.
http://www.neis.org/literature/Brochures/weapcon.htm
http://www.terrestrialenergy.org/
Find out how here:
http://coal2nuclear.com/
Check this book out:
http://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Economy-Zachary-Moitoza/dp/1441561269
You see that bit of Yellowcake that the author is holding in his right hand. That is enough to supply all of your lifetime’s energy needs. And the amount of Nuclear Waste you will generate is about the same.
Read the book, get educated on Nuclear Energy. The survival of the next generation depends upon it.
The author’s conclusion:
“…In the face of economic and environmental collapse, and so-called “renewables” not measuring up, people are finally starting to realize the little secret that only nuclear power can revitalize the economy and the environment… In June 2009, at an annual shareholder meeting in Dallas, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson said that the age of fossil fuels would last 100 years because there is no alternative. Conveniently, this is just long enough for most of the fossil fuels to be burnt, even coal. This book was written precisely to show that there is one alternative, which the fossil fuel industries rarely seem to mention. Petroleum man may be nearing extinction, but uranium man must rise to take his place… Energy can be a tough subject to understand, and the fossil fuel industries have benefited from an uninformed public… the time to end energy ignorance is now…”
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/27/the-nuclear-economy/
Nuke power and nuke bombs the same tech, that's why Iran Frightens us.
Can you imagine 10 times the nuclear industry we have now, the ease of diversion, and number of scientists and engineers capable of making bombs....
Bring closer the day of true Armageddon, a world nuclear exchange.
All for energy we can get cheaper safe clean and forever from rooftop pv solar and waste biofuels.
See my profile and comments further down for absolute proof with links.
Why do these pro nuke folks have such a death wish?
You've already been shown repeatedly Nuclear levelized cost is less than 12 cents per kwh-el, 6 cents per kwh-th, and can be less than 5 cents.
O&M costs of Nuclear, USA - 2007 2.0 cents per kwh:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat8p2.html
Levelized costs of Nuclear - all surveys - 2.7 to 11.0 cents per kwh:
http://uvdiv.blogspot.com/2009/07/levelized-cost-studies.html
Commercial power reactors have NEVER been used to produce weapons, and would be totally stupid to even attempt it, when the simplest, quickest, oldest, cheapest graphite pile reactor is ideal for that application. Any nation that wants Nuclear Weapons, and has the cash can certainly produce them, they don’t need NPP’s to do it.
The truth about Nuclear Proliferation:
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2008/08/two-four-six-eight-we-dont-want-to.html
Israel and North Korea both built weapons without a commercial NPP.
Pakistan & India used special centrifuges for weapons material.
There was 30,000 nuclear weapons before commercial NPP’s even began.
Oil -> Chemical Weapons -> 200 million dead. Far beyond anything Nuclear has done.
Nuclear power has saved at least 30 million lives by reducing Air Pollution.
Is it safe to asume that you believe the French Nuclear Program is the model we should adopt for America and that it is the success story that the French Government and Areva claim it has been?
Once you have answered this question, then my refuting and dismissing of your arguements will commence at once.
Senator, is there any way we could cut the EPA down a lot and/or drastically reduce these ridiculous emission standards? This would help our economy and would not hurt the environment.
Also, let's not do government run health care.