| action Australia |
 |
Antinuclear
about
POLITICS
|
|
for
detailed information on the nuclear industry and politics go to nuclear
politics
|
|
RECENT
NEWS AND VIEWS
|
|
And if that's not bad enough, plans for two other nuclear facilities that emit these toxic, radioactive gasses into the environment are in the works for Ohio and New Mexico as well....... .................with the private corporate ventures of new Uranium enrichment facilities on the drawing board in these same three states, it is quite clear that nuclear contamination of America is the federal stock holders' most lucrative, tried 'n' true, "hot" commodity........................ ............................
the French nuclear firm AREVA holds an undeniable international reputation
for being the most slick, compromised company of all such nuclear corporations.
Again, you can learn more - to the tune of over 59,000 "hits"
- about the antics of this firm plagued by problems and scandalous operations
simply by doing a Google search for: And as it spreads, this stuff is inhaled and bombards the internal organs causing cell destruction, death, and cancer - as well as a host of other radiation-induced diseases..........................................".
|
|
.................There's
also the problem of nuclear waste, for which there is no answer in the
offing. For decades, spent fuel from most American nuclear power plants
went to points in South Carolina and Washington state. But those dumps
are at or near capacity, and most waste both in this country and around
the world is now stored at or near the places where it is produced.
.....................It is not yet time to give up the protections voters gave themselves via Proposition 15. Far better to look toward more emphasis on renewable energy sources like wind, sun and geothermal than to bank on the uncertainties of the atom and the people associated with it........................." . |
|
But the old reactors
have to be shut down, and every time citizens of California try to bring
up the dangers of embrittlement, worker negligence, the accumulation
of waste, or even the viability of clean alternatives, they are told
that everything related to "safety" is under the jurisdiction
of the federal government, and that the state agencies are unable to
rule on such matters. |
|
.....………………The fact that new nukes make little economic sense does not mean that old nukes are not profitable. In fact, these nightmarishly complex radioactive boondoggles have recently been turned into cash cows. Utilities achieved this remarkable transformation the old-fashioned way -- they used socialism. ……………….Beginning in the 1990s, most American energy markets were deregulated one state, one region at a time. In the process many old utilities were broken up into different firms: some generated power, others sold it, still others handled transmission. One of the crucial details of deregulation was allowing utilities to pass on to rate payers the "stranded costs" -- the outstanding mortgage payments of their nuclear power plants........................... ....……………Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says he opposes any more relicensing of old nuclear plants. His rival Hillary Clinton has stopped just short of saying that. However, as was reported by the New York Times, Obama has close ties to the nuclear industry, particularly the Illinois-based Exelon, which has contributed at least $227,000 to his campaigns. Two of his top advisers have links to the firm, including his chief strategist, David Axelrod, who was a consultant for Exelon. Obama voted yes on the 2005 Energy bill, which lavished subsidies on oil, coal, ethanol and nukes; Senator Clinton, like almost half the Senate Democrats, voted against it. The Obama campaign says that as President he would not cut nuclear subsidies, only that he would boost subsidies for green power. Activists like Sidebotham say the real issue is not how to build more nukes but how to handle the old, decrepit plants and their huge stockpiles of radioactive waste. Most of the atomic plants in this country are reaching the end of their life span; seventeen have been decommissioned. And increasingly the question is what to do with the accumulated waste -- the extremely radioactive spent fuel rods. This is dangerous stuff. If exposed to air for more than six hours, spent fuel rods spontaneously combust, spewing highly poisonous radioactive isotopes far and wide. This spent fuel will be hot for 10,000 years. Activists like Sidebotham say the real issue is not how to build more nukes but how to handle the old, decrepit plants and their huge stockpiles of radioactive waste. Most of the atomic plants in this country are reaching the end of their life span; seventeen have been decommissioned. And increasingly the question is what to do with the accumulated waste -- the extremely radioactive spent fuel rods. This is dangerous stuff. If exposed to air for more than six hours, spent fuel rods spontaneously combust, spewing highly poisonous radioactive isotopes far and wide. This spent fuel will be hot for 10,000 years. ……………… ……….Humanity's Faustian bargain with atomic power is a story still in its early stages. No one knows how long nuclear facilities will last or what will happen to them during future social upheavals -- and there are bound to be a few of those during the next 10,000 years.....................................". |
|
McCain, a Republican senator from Arizona who has wrapped up his party's nomination, is by far the most enthusiastic about the carbon-free fuel source, regularly calling for more nuclear power plants at campaign stops throughout the nation. "I believe we are not going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and become energy independent ... unless we use nuclear power and use it in great abundance," he said in North Carolina on Monday. McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said nuclear power faced an "uneven playing field" from years of political opposition. "Sen. McCain would eliminate the political obstacles that hinder nuclear power, allow it to compete more effectively, and likely increase its share of the U.S. energy portfolio," he said…………………. Obama, an Illinois senator and the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, shares McCain's belief that nuclear energy is part of the solution to climate change.
|
|
But he opposes new federal subsidies and would work to address concerns about safety and waste storage, senior adviser Jason Grumet said…………
Senator Barack Obama |
…….Clinton,
a New York senator, prefers using renewable fuels to fight climate change
because of nuclear energy's risks.
|
|
………..So now they're having to decide quickly between Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, and they want to do it right. A lot of them are single-issue deciders. …………… ……….Rose Stevens, a retired teacher from Starlight, decided to go with Clinton about three weeks ago after studying the candidates' views on nuclear power. Stevens, who follows energy and environmental issues closely, worries that no one has a reasonable plan to clean up nuclear waste 'Hillary is at least an agnostic on the subject of nuclear power,' Stevens said, and for her that's better than Obama's stance. Obama has said that while nuclear power "is not necessarily our best option, it has to be part of our energy mix." |
Belarusians protest over Chernobyl Aljazeera.net APRIL 26, 2008
-"Several thousand supporters of the Belarusian opposition have marched
through the capital to mark the anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear accident.
Demonstrators took to the streets of Minsk on Saturday protestesting against an alleged government cover-up of the disaster's consequences. The Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine is just south of the border with Belarus. On April 26, 1986, one of the plant's reactors exploded, spewing a cloud of radiation over much of Europe - and Belarus, downwind from the plant, was severely affected. In recent years,
the government has taken about 1,000 cities and towns in the area off
of the radiation danger list, despite what critics say is a substantial
continuing health risk. |
|
Mayor Mitrovic says
Montenegro should look to Mother Nature to find solutions to its energy
problems. "We will look to wind, solar and other environmentally
friendly sources. We have 270 sunny days per year along the coast. Why
we didn't develop alternative energy in the past is not a question for
today but we will pay attention to this from this point forward."........................................" |
Mojkovak Mayor pledges eco friendly future Montenegro
Times, Montenegro - 26 Apr 2008 "……………………..Mitrovic
says, "No nuclear plants will be built here no matter how high
tech they are, as far as I am concerned. I have no influence on Albania
but I also oppose building them there. The Italians can build them in
their own country." Italy banned the building of more nuclear power
plants in a 1987 national referendum.|
In an effort to jump-start a "nuclear renaissance," the Bush Administration has pushed one package of subsidies after another. For the past two years a program of federal loan guarantees has sat waiting for utilities to build nukes. Last year's appropriations bill set the total amount on offer at $18.5 billion. And now the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill is gaining momentum and will likely accrue amendments that will offer yet more money. ......... ..........why is the much-storied 'nuclear renaissance' so slow to get rolling? Who is holding up the show? In a nutshell, blame Warren Buffett and the banks--they won't put up the cash. 'Wall street doesn't like nuclear power' says Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. The fundamental fact is that nuclear power is too expensive and risky to attract the necessary commercial investors. Even with vast government subsidies, it is difficult or almost impossible to get proper financing and insurance. The massive federal subsidies on offer will cover up to 80 percent of construction costs of several nuclear power plants in addition to generous production tax credits, as well as risk insurance. But consider this: the average two-reactor nuclear power plant is estimated to cost $10 billion to $18 billion to build. That's before cost overruns, and no US nuclear power plant has ever been delivered on time or on budget..........................In fact, the sputtering decline of nuclear power has been one of the greatest industrial failures of modern times. In 1985 Forbes called the nuke industry 'the largest managerial disaster in history' Worldwide, about twenty nuclear power plants are being built, but most are in Asia and Russia and are closely linked to nuclear weapons programs. Japan and France have large nuke programs, but both countries heavily subsidize their plants, use a single design and built their fleets not to make profits but to ensure some minimum strategic energy independence and, for France, to build an atomic arsenal. ......... ......................Japan and France have large nuke programs, but both countries heavily subsidize their plants, use a single design and built their fleets not to make profits but to ensure some minimum strategic energy independence and, for France, to build an atomic arsenal. ................... The industry also places ghostwritten op-eds under the bylines of scientists for hire. ................... .............But even the Oz-like magic of corporate spin, public subsidies and presidential speechifying have their limits. In late December the man whose name is synonymous with sound money turned his back on nuclear power. Warren Buffett's MidAmerican Nuclear Energy Company scrapped plans to build a plant in Payette, Idaho, because no matter how many times its managers ran the numbers (and they spent $13 million researching it), they found that it simply made no sense from an economic standpoint. ................Humanity's
Faustian bargain with atomic power is a story still in its early stages.
No one knows how long nuclear facilities will last or what will happen
to them during future social upheavals--and there are bound to be a
few of those during the next 10,000 years. ....................there
will be no massive nuclear renaissance. Talk of such a renaissance,
however, helps keep people distracted, their minds off the real project
of developing wind, solar, geothermal and tidal kinetics to build a
green power grid........". |
|
The radioactive isotope called 'the most dangerous substance known to man' , capable of endangering life on this planet for hundreds of generations, but touted by the atomic industry as a necessary fuel for its Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactors has been the subject of controversy for over a decade. The NRC's move (its first major ruling) is encouraging, and gives environmental groups a bit more time to fight for a permanent ban on the incredibly dangerous substance....." |
|
..............'Compensation doesn't mean a thing to me. I don't want a penny,' he said. 'I want recognition for the children and widows affected and the men who have died through radiation sickness. I'm sad that
there are so many men who have died, so many widows and so many children
born with abnormalities, which are said to be caused by this. I had
a pal who had children after he was stationed on the island, and they
had all sorts of disabilities'...................................". |
Greenpeace Supports Historic Launch 16 April 08 If the nuclear industry thinks they're on the edge of a nuclear renaissance, they'll have to think again - at least in South Africa. This past weekend in Bloemfontein saw the successful launch of the Coalition Against Nuclear Energy (CANE), with representatives from all corners of the country, including: Namaqualand communities affected by nuclear waste at Vaalputs; neighbours of Koeberg Nuclear Power Station; landowners around Pelindaba (site of the proposed pebble-bed fuel factory, nuclear enrichment plant, and nuclear waste smelter), and residents opposed to the proposed sites for a new nuclear power station at Bantamsklip and Thyspunt,… |
|
To comply with EU law, 7.5 percent of Poland's energy needs to come from renewable sources by 2010. By 2020, renewable sources should account for 15 percent. "Investing in green energy has another advantage: Most investment costs can be covered from EU funds or by private investors," Zowsik pointed out……………… ………… "Huge investments in a nuclear plant mean that there will be a lack of funds in investments for the decrease of CO2 emissions," she said. "The government should focus on renewable energy sources. To build a wind farm requires only a few years, while it usually takes 20 years to start operation of a nuclear plant, including both construction work and administrative procedures. And a nuclear plant has never opened on time," she said……………… …………..Regardless of the government's intentions or Poland's energy needs, the largest challenge facing the nuclear power project is convincing the people of its merits. Research shows that
the majority of Poles are against building a nuclear plant in Poland.
In January, a survey by GfK revealed that 56 percent of Poles opposed
the idea. A negative perception of nuclear energy persists in the country,
especially since memories of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster remain strong.
|
 
Notre Dame residents oppose uranium mining Times
& TranscriptBy Cole Hobson April 14th, 2008
"NOTRE-DAME
- Over 100 concerned New Brunswickers worried about uranium exploration
and possible mining in the province gathered in Notre-Dame yesterday
for a public information session. The message presented was as straightforward
as the one printed on the orange and red signs which were handed out
to interested community members -- No uranium mines. |
 Protests
as French PM visits Japan nuclear plantROKKASHO, Japan (AFP) 13 April 08 - "Hundreds of Japanese anti-nuclear activists protested Saturday as French Prime Minister Francois Fillon toured a new atomic facility here built in partnership between the two nations. The plant in the northern region of Aomori is expected to begin operations next month, but critics charge that it poses an environmental safety risk and could also be vulnerable to an earthquake…………………………….Some 700 protesters rallied in Aomori, the main town in the prefecture of the same name and near Rokkasho, where the facility was built by Japan Nuclear Fuel (JNFL) and France's nuclear giant Areva. The nuclear reprocessing plant is "the biggest and most dangerous obstacle to directing Japan towards a safe and clean energy future," the environmental group Greenpeace said in a statement. "Areva is aggressively promoting nuclear power expansion despite the risks, poor value for money and ineffectiveness in combating problems such as climate change," it added. Protesters also worried about a possibly active quake faultline. A major quake could trigger "an enormous amount of radiation leakage (that) will affect not only local residents here, but also the global environment," said Koji Asaishi, a lawyer involved in four lawsuits focused on the possible existence of an active faultline....". |
LIVING UNDER A MUSHROOM CLOUDEvening Post 11 April 08 - "From the spare room at his home in Portishead, Jeff Liddiatt wages a David versus Goliath battle. He is campaigning on behalf of thousands of British servicemen who were exposed to huge amounts of radiation in the 1950s when they took part in atomic bomb tests in the South Pacific. Mr Liddiatt, 67, claims that this exposure, which the Ministry of Defence (MoD) still refuses to admit took place, seriously affected his health and that of other servicemen, their children and their grand- children. He has now organised an online petition on the Prime Minister's Number 10 Downing Street website, but said that no one is asking for compensation. They simply want the problem looked at scientifically, and, where possible, solutions found. Mr Liddiatt launched the petition in February on behalf of the British Nuclear Test Veterans' Association (BNTVA), calling for a thorough investigation into how their exposure to radiation has affected the health of them and their families. The group claims that they were treated as guinea pigs between 1952 and 1958, when tests of nuclear weapons were carried out in the Pacific Ocean and Australia. Eight hundred of these veterans, of whom only 450 remain alive, are represented by Rosenblatt solicitors and are suing the MoD in a class action worth millions. The action focuses on the Government's gross negligence and the impact of nuclear esting on the health of these men including cancers, skin defects, fertility problems and reduced life expectancy. They believe they were not adequately protected from the blasts and did ot know what the result of these blasts would be.....". |
Negative reaction to nuclear power planIc.Wales.co.uk Apr 11 2008 by Martin Shipton, Western Mail "A NEW generation of nuclear power stations would be more dangerous and carry greater financial risks than their predecessors in Britain, according to a report published today. Spent fuel produced by the Government's preferred kind of pressurised water reactors would have higher levels of radiation and could not be buried in a single deep underground repository, says the report's author Hugh Richards, who lives near Llandrindod Wells...............". |
Kazakhstan's Scary Uranium AmbitionsBusiness Week 9 April 08 "The Central Asian country intends to become the global leader in uranium production. Its proximity to hotspots like Pakistan and Afghanistan worries some by Abdujalil Abdurasulov A few months ago a train headed from Kyrgyzstan to Iran was turned back at the Uzbek border after it was found to be carrying highly radioactive material. It had already traveled through southern Kazakhstan without the substance being detected at border checkpoints. Kyrgyz authorities have said little about the incident, but it raises the specter of nuclear smuggling in the region just as Kazakhstan has embarked on an ambitious plan to become the world's leading supplier of uranium. Such unaccounted-for radioactive material, especially highly enriched uranium, is floating around Central Asia, possibly crossing borders freely. In a January interview with the Arabic daily al Hayat, Mohammed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, named Kazakhstan among the four states where most nuclear trafficking incidents occurred, noting that such material could be used for making a "dirty bomb." .............................................." |
|
British, Russian Support May Not Save Ambitious Nuclear Power Club World Politics Review Richard Weitz 10 Apr 2008
|
-"After hesitating several years, the British government finally accepted American entreaties to join the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)........... ........the GNEP remains in trouble, both internationally and within the United States..................GNEP members will not need to foreswear the right to enrich uranium . ...Although such reassurances may have facilitated the entry of Australia and Canada into the program, they have aroused concern among nonproliferation experts that GNEP will have the perverse effect of encouraging the proliferation of sensitive nuclear technologies. ............................some have criticized the program for encouraging nuclear proliferation, wasting money on a narrow range of excessively ambitious and unachievable technologies, and diverting resources from other more important priorities, such as cleaning up domestic nuclear waste sites. Members of Congress share many of these concerns, and have severely limited GNEP funding. Despite Russian and British support for the partnership, it appears that GNEP will remain primarily a research program for the next few years, notwithstanding the grandiose visions for GNEP held by some of its more ardent advocates. |
|
French Nuclear Lemon Must not be Exported to US says Advocacy Group Common dreams News Centre TACOMA PARK, MD - April 1 - "The experimental French nuclear reactor - seven of which are potentially scheduled to be built in the U.S. - has already established a record of construction and safety flaws that could jeopardize public safety, new documents have revealed. A letter from the French nuclear safety watchdog agency and leaked to Greenpeace France has revealed numerous technical errors and inconsistencies at the site of the first European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) to be built in France. The EPR - known as the "Evolutionary Pressurized Reactor" in the U.S. - is an untested, experimental design under construction at Flamanville, France and at Olkiluoto, Finland. The Finnish reactor has already earned notoriety for technical failures, long delays and enormous cost-overruns. The EPR is a product of Areva, the French nuclear giant that is more than 90 percent government-owned. "It's clear that the EPR is turning out to be a nuclear lemon," said Linda Gunter of Beyond Nuclear. "These latest revelations confirm that the rush to expand nuclear energy is a risky enterprise beset by safety shortcuts and motivated by haste and profit." ...........................................…………………The problems in France mirror those that have occurred at the only other EPR construction site - at Olkiluoto in Finland - where delays, cost over-runs and similar technical mistakes with the concrete pour have set the project back at least two years. The Finnish cost over-run is currently estimated at $1.5 billion. Who ultimately pays the bill will likely be contested in court, but French taxpayers are expected to bear the brunt of the costs. In addition, Finnish electricity users will lose billions of Euros because of the delay........................................." |
|
Environmental Leaders
Join Me in Opposition to Nuclear Power in California The California Majority Report Assembly member Lloyd Levine 1 April 08 "………………………..The California Legislature enacted nuclear power plant safety laws in 1976. These laws have served us well. Before new nuclear plants could be built in California, we would need to repeal those laws and give up the protection they provide. One of those laws prohibits construction of new nuclear plants until there is a proven means for safe dispose of the highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel the plants produce. In the 28 years since those safety laws were enacted, we have come no nearer to a solution to the nuclear waste disposal problem today than we were then. And remember, that spent fuel has a lethal half life of 500,000 years. Today there is highly radioactive waste stored at four nuclear plants in California including two that were shut down more than two decades ago. That's because the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission still hasn't provided a disposal facility for the toxic waste at Sacramento's Rancho Seco plant and PG & E's Humboldt Bay plant. On California's pristine coast nuclear material is being stored on-site at San Onofre and Diablo Canyon nuclear plants. If Californians give nuclear power a second chance we will be moving in the wrong direction and relying on false promises. Today, even during a housing and economic slump, homeowners and businesses are turning to affordable, safe, clean and dependable energy in huge numbers. In fact, the renewable
energy legislation you have signed into law has given California the
greenest, most environmentally friendly portfolio in the country. With
inflation factored in, retail electricity prices have decreased by 10.7
percent while California made an aggressive commitment toward renewable
energy and other clean sources of electricity. …………………………Nuclear
power has no future in California's new energy era. It is dirty, dangerous,
too expensive and cannot exist without massive taxpayer subsidies. |
 |
Will Al Gore help shut the nuke power loophole?THE FREE PRESS Harvey Wassermann April 2, 2008 Today Al Gore is unveiling a massive campaign to fight climate chaos. But the hugely funded
atomic power industry has jumped on global warming with the Big Lie
that its failed reactors can somehow help. It's a sorry replay of the
1950s promise that atomic power would be 'too cheap to meter.'
|
|
Nukes were deleted from the Kyoto Accords as a 'solution' to global warming. .................................The reactors also emit heated---often chemically treated---steam into the atmosphere, and hot water into lakes, streams and the oceans. Reactors in France, Alabama and elsewhere have been forced shut because global-warmed streams have become to hot to cool the reactors, and emissions would raise waters downstream beyond acceptable levels (in some cases, over 90 degrees Farenheit). Meanwhile, nukes are enormously expensive. Some first-generation US reactors came in as much as 25 times over their original budget. Small wonder Wall Street "won't be burned again." ..................... As for France, its atomic industry is a form of national socialism. The reactors are primarily state-funded and immune to the kinds of cost-accounting that would force a normal industry to actually pay for itself. France's 60-odd reactors are loss-leaders for a nation hoping to export large numbers of them. But a 'new generation' French-designed reactor under construction in Finland is already two years behind schedule and $2 billion over budget.................. .........The reactor pushers admit that they can't proceed without massive taxpayer handouts. Last fall, led by US Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) the industry slipped a $50 billion loan guarantee package into the Energy Bill. Thanks to a national and grassroots campaign and strong leadership from Congressional Democrats, those guarantees were defeated. But $18.5 billion did sleaze into descriptive language for last year's Appropriations Bill. The upcoming Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Bill will be laden with radioactive pork. And the industry is now working on state utility commissions to grant Construction Work in Progress, a boondoggle forcing ratepayers to fund new reactors as they are being built. They've already succeeded in Florida. Without stopping all that, Gore's much-welcomed initiative cannot succeed. Nuke power is the Achilles Heel that can doom all attempts to save this planet...................... If this new push to stop global warming supports grassroots citizen action, and helps stop taxpayer funding for new reactors, we just might succeed.
|
|
The massive investment
required to set up a reactor, the long gestation period and the added
cost of waste disposal are also deterrents. Another concern is that
there is no impermeable barrier between using nuclear means to generate
electricity and acquiring the know-how to create nuclear weapons. But
govern-ments seem to have decided that the rewards outweigh the risk.
|
Atomic
Future|
.................Risky
Appropriations details how the plan will actually exacerbate these critical
challenges to mitigate climate change, halt nuclear proliferation and
meeting energy demand at home and abroad. Key findings of the report
include: |
|
Building work on the third nuclear reactor at Olkiluoto in south-west Finland is badly behind schedule,..... ...........The Greenpeace summary also highlights problems with the plans for the storage of nuclear waste ........ .......The MP emphasises that there are safety risks associated with the future operations of the plant as well as with the waste management. She also believes that investing in nuclear power puts a brake on the development of renewable energy, not just in Finland but in the whole of the Nordic-Baltic Region......" |
Finnish nuclear plant worries Danes Norden 27-03-2008
- "Construction of a nuclear power plant in Finland is causing
concern in Danmark. Kristen Touborg MP has noted a Greenpeace report,
which consists of a summary of the official inquiry by the Finnish Radiation
and Nuclear Safety Authority, into problems that have arisen in conjunction
with the project. 
Brown and Sarkozy to kick off new nuclear game Greenpeace UK
by Nathan 26 March 2008. - "This week, Gordon Brown and the
French President Nicholas Sarkozy, will sign up to an entente atomique
and herald in a new era of cross channel cooperation.
The pact will be announced later this week at the "Arsenal summit" held at the Emirates stadium, the nominal home of French exiles and sportsmen alike, where Brown will open the proverbial front door to French utility Electricity de France (EDF), and its burgeoning workforce, to come build and operate any new nuclear power stations here in the UK. They will claim that nuclear power is the bedrock of global energy security and a necessary tool in the fight against climate change, but do these claims stand up to scrutiny? Sadly not. The simple fact is that building new nuclear stations actually threatens our ability to reduce the UK's carbon emissions, and whilst the government would like most people to think nuclear power can deliver energy security, it can't. The government's figures speak for themselves - a new fleet of nuclear power stations would cut UK emissions only by around four per cent some time after the year 2025. ......................... Sarkozy has recently been clocking up the air miles promoting nuclear power and selling the technology to emerging markets in the Middle East, South Africa and South America, and the UK is key to his sales pitch.................. ......If nuclear power really was to be a panacea in the fight against climate change, and to have any real impact in reducing global carbon emissions, it would be necessary to build over 40 nuclear power plants every year for the next 75 years. That's three a month and that's not going to happen -. |
|
White paper failed to embrace N-power The Yomiuri Shimbun 24 March 08 "………………the recently released White Paper on Nuclear Energy ……………provided an simple overview of situations concerning nuclear power both at home and abroad ……………………….There is, as yet, no prospect of Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant in Niigata Prefecture, which was hit by a powerful earthquake, resuming operations. It also is unknown whether or how the problem of disposal of high-level radioactive waste produced in the process of nuclear power generation will be settled. Issues piling up Problems related to nuclear power are accumulating……………………….". |
|
…………..if the Government is so eager to escape the messy implications of a public inquiry, it should stick to its word. John Hutton recently announced that the UK has the capacity to generate a massive 33GW of renewable electricity from offshore wind turbines alone in the next 10 years or so, easily negating the need for new coal. With the best renewable energy resources in the whole of Europe, we should be leading the pack when it comes to clean energy. Instead of betting the ranch on an unproven technology with massive risks, (carbon capture and storage) the Government should start implementing the solutions that are staring it in the face....................................................". |
|
The potential for
devastation will increase as China continues such hazardous activities.
One can only imagine the future crisis this will create................................................"
|
The tragedy
of Tibet Sify.com Tarini Mehta 18 March , 2008 "…………………………China
is also reported to have stationed approximately 90 nuclear warheads
in Tibet, and the Ninth Academy, China's academy for nuclear research
located in Amdo, Tibet, has dumped a large quantity of radio active
waste in a haphazard, dangerous manner. |
About a year after their bill was defeated, McCain and Lieberman began drafting a new version . It was close to the original, but with one significant addition: billions of dollars in tax subsidies for the nuclear energy industry.………… ……environmentalists who had worked with McCain and Lieberman on the first bill were stunned. In one meeting, lobbyists for environmental groups attempted to persuade McCain not to attach nuclear subsidies to the legislation, arguing that doing so would weaken support for the bill. "He shook his finger at us and scolded us," says one participant at the meeting, who recalls McCain saying, "You're wrong and I'm right." …… ………………..by pushing breaks for nuclear power, McCain damaged a cause he had been passionately advocating for, leaving this particular battlefield with self-inflicted wounds...".
|
 |
...............Clinton has also made the topic a key point of attack against rival Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, putting out a radio ad that refers to Obama as being "hip deep in financial ties" to Chicago-based energy giant Exelon Corp., a nuclear plant operator that supports the Yucca waste site. ........ |
 |
|
..................his financial ties to Exelon appear to be inescapable. A cursory search of his campaign finance report shows 158 contributions from people who identify themselves as Exelon employees, totaling more than $150,000........... ............But Obama's not the only candidate wading deep in a pool of contributions from the nuclear energy industry.Clinton has received $68,650 in 34 contributions from NRG Energy, and the company's chief executive, David Crane, is listed as one of her Hillraisers -- meaning he has brought more than $100,000 in contributions into the campaign. The Clintons' ties to the New Jersey-based power giant run deeper than that, though. The company committed $5 million to the Clinton Global Initiative in 2007, according to the web site of the charity run by former president Bill Clinton The company's six-year commitment is $175 million. The commitments are not donations to the former president's charity, but promises made by the company to the Global Initiative to spend the money on projects that will 'help increase the benefits and reduce the burdens of global interdependence, make a world of more partners and fewer enemies, and give more people the tools they need to build a better future.''................................." |
|
below - a selection of past news and views
|
 Nuclear power
bad option: EarthlifeNamibian BRIGITTE WEIDLICH March 10, 2008 "THE use of nuclear power is unsafe, dangerous and a bad option for Namibia, due to long-term radiation and unsolved problems regarding nuclear waste storage placing a heavy burden on future generations, a Namibian environmental organisation says. n a reaction to last week's Cabinet decision to opt for uranium enrichment in Namibia as well as the construction of a nuclear power plant, the organisation Earthlife Namibia on Friday said it was "absolutely shocked" about the decision. "Given current global demand, it is estimated that the world's uranium resources - both those currently available and possible new reserves - will be exhausted within 60 to 70 years," it said. Earthlife stated that Government's view that electricity produced by nuclear power plants was environmentally friendly and free of carbon emissions was not true. ..............................................."The whole fuel cycle of nuclear power, from mining uranium, enrichment of uranium to the decommissioning of the power station after its lifespan, releases three to four times more carbon dioxide per unit of energy produced than renewable energy," Earthlife spokesperson Bertchen Kohrs noted. "High-level nuclear waste remains radioactive for a long time and worldwide there is no solution of safe disposal. Nuclear waste is a problem that does not go away because it remains dangerous for at least 200 000 years, thus we burden many generations to come with a problem we create today. There is a risk of low-level radiation in all stages of the nuclear power process. ....................................................According to mining experts, Namibia's uranium deposits will be depleted by about 2026. "There is not much use of having a nuclear power station and a uranium enrichment plant, both of which would take at least ten years - until 2018 - to get up and running when eight just years later uranium mining will end," a geologist speaking on condition of anonymity told The Namibian over the weekend. ................................" |
|
………………………….Remember when they said nuclear power would be ''too cheap to meter''? After a careful study, The Economist concluded that there is not a single nuclear power plant in the world that is commercially competitive. Using actual costs rather than industry fantasy figures leaves a huge scope for cheaper options. The cheapest is ''negawatts'' _ investments in efficiency …………….Finland's latest nuclear plant cost $4,300 per kilowatt to invest (compared to $1,000 per kW for gas power plants). The government's dubious claim of cheap nuclear can be realised only through massive state subsidies and/or reduced safety standards. …………… ……….Thai society will be able to avoid conflict, tension, worry and fear. The option to pursue a more sustainable energy path will remains open. The decision on whether to go nuclear is not one that can be left to Egat and energy bureaucrats. It is a decision that will affect the future of Thailand, and the public must have a say. By deciding against nuclear power, we will not only prevent future conflicts, but also save the 1.8 billion baht that has already been allocated to nuclear power. A better option would be to allocate these funds towards developing and promoting energy efficiency measures and renewable technologies. A sustainable energy path for Thailand is possible, but this cannot be achieved with nuclear power and without structural reform of the energy sector..........................." |
A dangerous, expensive option |
"The top three
Democratic presidential candidates, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards tussled
before the Jan. 19 Nevada caucus over which was more opposed to the
Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. The fuss has importance as
more than just campaign mud-wrestling |
|
. It may be a sign that it is finally time to write an obituary for the Yucca Mountain plan - and a sign that the industry-ballyhooed "renaissance" of commercial nuclear electric power in the U.S. is headed for trouble - or for a train-wreck......................Whichever Democrat is nominated, Vegas oddsmakers might well favor that person to win the White House in November, and he or she would presumably be expected to live up to the campaign rhetoric by killing Yucca Mountain.. The cloud over Yucca Mountain's future is much darker than that...........................................Yucca was born of politics, not science, back in 1987, when Congress told scientists they could pick any site they thought best - as long as it was Yucca Mountain. Nevada never agreed. Some 20 years later, after billions of dollars of study, the Energy Department is not much closer to making an air-tight scientific case....................................This year, politics may be the project's final undoing......" |
| California
Nuclear Initiative Withdrawn: A Victory for Environmentalists and Setback
for Nuclear Revivalists That May Have National Implications CALIFORNIA PROGRESS REPORT By Frank D. Russo 21 Nov 07 "California Republican Assembly member Chuck Devore and other proponents of a ballot measure to repeal California's 1976 nuclear safeguards act -- which prohibits new reactors until there is a permanent solution to the problem of disposal of high level radioactive waste -- yesterday quietly withdrew their proposed initiative from circulation. Apparently having trouble getting sufficient signatures to qualify, and enough financial backing and public support to pass, they pulled the plug on the effort. Dan Hirsch, President of the Committee to Bridge the Gap, one of the initiative's opponents, hailed the withdrawal as being of 'national significance,' and as indicative that the national movement to build new nuclear plants may be running out of steam. 'Nuclear power is the most dangerous technology on earth, with risks of meltdowns, terrorist attack, proliferation, and leaking long-lived wastes.' said Hirsch. 'This humiliating reversal for a proposed initiative to revive it in California is a great victory for common sense. Now the state can focus on safe and sensible renewable solutions to global warming' ." Bill Magavern, Senior Representative for Sierra Club California, said, "California has much cheaper, safer and quicker solutions to our electricity needs. We should be moving forward with 21st century clean energy technologies instead of pouring more money down the nuclear rat hole." |
|
It was hailed
as the template for all future reactors - but then they tried to build
it. .....The 1,600MW-capacity reactor, which was meant to be producing energy by 2009, is now around two years behind schedule. It is more than 1bneuros over budget, without taking into account the cost of the lost electricity production time which, rough estimates suggest, could run to 600m euros. After Finland's government rejected greener energy sources for being too expensive, that has angered many Finns......... ............The delays will now cost the Finnish people billions of euros.....................................................".
|
|
How the candidates don't talk about this is beyond belief, let alone treason. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the proud parents don't ask if it's a boy or a girl, the ask 'Is it normal?' Not only that, our 'loved soldiers' get to take this stuff home in their sperm and DNA and when they complain of being fatigued and tired, they are plastered with a PTSD tag that will stay with them forever. It's no wonder why 120 former soldiers commit suicide every week in this country................". |
|
Scientists
take on Brown over nuclear plans Academics say safety concerns
of new generation of plants not yet addressed
Guardian Unlimited 6 January 08 A group of scientists and academics today condemns as undemocratic and possibly illegal the government's plans to force through a new generation of nuclear power stations to meet Britain's energy needs for the n ext 30 years. They warn that questions about the risks from radiation, disposal of nuclear waste and vulnerability to a terrorist attack have not been addressed - even though the government was ordered last February to repeat a public consultation on energy supply, after its exercise was declared unlawful by a high court judge oday The nuclear consultation group, made up of 17 energy economists and several of the government's independent advisers on nuclear waste, condemned the methods used in the second attempt to gather public and expert opinion. 'We are profoundly concerned that the government's approach was designed to provide particular and limiting answers' said Paul Dorfman, a spokesman for the independent group, which includes professors of Oxford, Sussex, and Lancaster universities, and Rutgers in the US. 'Those answers risk locking in UK energy to an inflexible and vulnerable pathway that will prove unsustainable' he added.… ……..In an 87-page report, the group says: "Significant issues were not consulted on in any meaningful way or resolved in practice. It has left the government vulnerable to legal challenge and may lead to hostility and mistrust of any future energy decision," the paper warns ……………… …………………The intervention could trigger fresh legal action, however. Yesterday Greenpeace, whose challenge to the energy review was upheld last year, said it would wait to see the government's formal response on Tuesday before deciding whether to return to the courts ...................... ………………Green groups said the questions were loaded and the information presented biased and inaccurate. A complaint was made to the Market Research Standards Board alleging the market research firm involved broke the code of conduct........................." …
|
 Spending Bill Includes
$24 Billion Loan Guarantees for Nuclear Industry Democracy Now
21 Dec 07 - "The House is set to vote Tuesday on the
$500 billion 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. Hidden in the bill is a
major energy package that would boost government financing for the nuclear
industry. It would provide loan guarantees of up to $25 billion for new
nuclear reactors.................................." |
|
Hillary Clinton: 'When it comes to nuclear power, I'm an agnostic. We've got two big problems: What to do with waste? And how do we afford to build and maintain nuclear power plants? If we can deal with those two big question marks, I'm not against it' John Edwards: 'Wind, solar, cellulose-based biofuels are the way we need to go. I do not favor nuclear power.....It is extremely costly...and we still don't have a safe way to dispose of the nuclear waste' Barack Obama:
'Nuclear power is one of the few emissions-free energy sources available
to us....I am open to the use of nuclear power production as a transition
to new energy technologies, but I think answers to a variety of safety
questions, such as how we are going to transport and dispose of nuclear
waste safely, are required'...................................." |
|
................................What
the party is proposing
|
 Bush's
Nuclear 'Reprocessing' Plan Under Fire
OneWorld.net Haider Rizvi 26 Nov 07 - "NEW YORK, - ' The Bush administration is pushing for plans to reuse spent nuclear fuel in power reactors across the United States, but key senators and nuclear analysts have raised economic and security concerns about reusing the weapons-grade fuel. 'We have serious concerns about the implications of current plans for commercial spent fuel reprocessing,' a group of seven Democratic and one Republican senators told Byron Dorgan (D-ND), chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Appropriations, in a letter last week........................ The reprocessing is being promoted as part of the administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), a plan to form an international partnership to reprocess spent nuclear fuel in a way that renders the plutonium in it usable for nuclear energy ……………………….The eight senators said reprocessing is "not a solution" to the problem of nuclear waste and held that it could weaken U.S. efforts to halt global nuclear proliferation. In addition, they argued that the Energy Department's plans could cost taxpayers at least $200 billion. ………… ……………..In addition to the senators' objections, the administration's current proposal has also been criticized by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS),'unwise' effort that lacked 'economic justification.'……………………The nuclear power industry has expressed no interest in cost sharing, almost ensuring that the entire burden would fall on taxpayers..................." |
|
French
Shun Nuclear Energy, Choose Conservation According to a poll by CSA. 96 per cent of respondents think conserving energy should be a priority, and 94 per cent think the European country should focus on developing solar and wind power. Polling
Data Developing
nuclear energy: yes - 35%, no - 61%
not sure - 4% |
|
GNEP
facing opposition from National Academy of Sciences Earlier this week,
the academy published a report recommending that Congress scale back
the program because it relies on unproven technology. ..................................................GNEP was launched in February of 2006 as part of President George Bush's advanced energy initiative. It was established as a federal program and funded at $80 million. Funding for 2007 was $167.5 million. Proposed funding for 2008, from Bush, is $405 million. The Senate and House have both proposed significantly lower levels of funding.................". |
| Clinton,
Obama oppose nuclear facility in Nevada Sacbee.com By David Whitney 31 Oct 07 WASHINGTON - "New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama declared themselves flatly opposed to building a nuclear waste repository in Nevada Wednesday, a clear indication that the 2008 president elections could end a 25-year effort to build the controversial dump. Clinton delivered her opposition in person and Obama by letter as the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held its first hearing on Yucca Mountain since Democrats took over Congress in January and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., assumed the panel's helm......................................Critics charge that moving spent fuel from over 100 commercial nuclear plants to Yucca Mountain 100 miles from Las Vegas would be a huge health and safety risk. They charge that the site leaks, is in an active earthquake zone ..............." |
|
Science
panel calls for Bush to dump nuclear waste plan Bush
announced the initiative in 2006 and has touted it as key to U.S. efforts
to deal with a growing amount of highly radioactive reactor waste and
still allow a large expansion of commercial nuclear power. |