Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Nuke Industry Is on the Verge of Getting $25 Billion Handout

By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!. Posted December 18, 2007.


Congress is about to dump billions on an industry that has been unprofitable for 50 years.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Amy Goodman

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The House is set to vote on Tuesday on the $500 billion 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. Unveiled on Sunday, the measure covers budgets for all cabinet departments except the Pentagon. It's expected to pass both houses of Congress this week.

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. A massive grassroots campaign forced these taxpayer-financed loans out of the national energy bill earlier this month, but last week Republican Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico slipped them back into the budget vote.

Harvey Wasserman has been at the forefront of raising awareness about the dangers of nuclear power. He helped found the grassroots anti-nuke movement in the early 1970s, advises the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. He's senior editor of the Ohio-based freepress.org and editor of nukefree.org. Harvey Wasserman has also co-authored two books on the 2004 election. They are How the GOP Stole America's 2004 Election and Is Rigging 2008 and What Happened in Ohio: A Documentary Record of Theft and Fraud in the 2004 Election.

Amy Goodman: Welcome to Democracy Now! ... Talk about this energy bill.

Harvey Wasserman: Well, we beat Pete Domenici. With Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Browne, Graham Nash, Keb' Mo', Ben Harper, we put out a music video on nukefree.org. We raised 120,000 signatures and presented them to Congress in October. And Domenici was forced to pull these nuke loan guarantees out of the energy bill, but then slipped them back into the appropriations bill.

And the nuclear power industry is a fifty-year proven failure, and they can't get independent financing to build their own new reactors, which they want to do now. And so, they've gone to the government. This is one issue where we're in agreement with Forbes magazine and the Cato Institute, which is backing the opposition to these loan guarantees, because if nuclear power, after fifty years of huge government subsidies, can't make it in the marketplace, why should the taxpayers fund another $25 billion worth of reactor construction?

We're on the brink of a tremendous energy revolution in solar, wind, tidal, geothermal. You know, we're looking almost at a solartopia of a renewable-based economy, which will be much more controllable at the grassroots, much more democratically oriented. And that's why the nuclear power industry is desperately holding on here.

Goodman:So who are its backers, aside from Pete Domenici?

Wasserman: Well, we have Westinghouse, General Electric -- the usual suspects -- Ariva, a large French company, all wanting to go into the -- to revive the so-called nuclear renaissance. You know, we've been trying for fifty years to drive the stake through the heart of an industry that doesn't seem to have one.

And there's absolutely no demand for new nuclear plants. There's no reason to build them. They don't work. Even with optimum conditions of licensing and so on, they couldn't get a reactor online for another ten years. They've been saying the nuclear power plants are a solution to the global warming problem; we know they make global warming worse. You know, it's a total scam. And they are continuing to take of taxpayer money, public money, to build reactors where we don't need that kind of financing for wind, for solar, for tidal, geothermal, the other forms of green energy, which can be community-controlled.

And so, these subsidies, these loan guarantees in the appropriations bill, we are asking people, through the nukefree.org website, to call Congress, call the congressional leadership, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi -- David Obey is very key as the congressional chair of the House Appropriations Committee, Mitch McConnell on the Republican side -- and tell them: get these loan guarantees out of the appropriations bill.

Goodman:So talk about how it worked over this last month -- went in, went out, went in.

Wasserman: Yes. Well, under tremendous pressure with the signatures that we brought in from nukefree.org to the Congress -- we had Ed Markey, John Hall, Shelly Berkeley at our press conference, support from John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, other key green energy backers -- Domenici was forced to pull these subsidies out of the energy bill. It was a very big victory for us.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: congress, nuclear industry, harvey wasserman

Amy Goodman is the host of the nationally syndicated radio news program, Democracy Now!

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
If it ain't renewable, it'll "pass" !
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 18, 2007 6:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, and get ready for more wars for nuclear !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Article is biased and fails to press the issue
Posted by: EncinoM on Dec 18, 2007 7:35 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nuclear energy is a short term fix, producing zero co2.

Threason it has not been marketable is because of the fear people like Wasserman have injected into the debate. They have not used logic and reason, but emotion to sway the american public.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How long? Posted by: suprmark
» Better numbers Posted by: Joffan
» RE: Better numbers Posted by: Joffan
» Speculate all you want Posted by: PaulC
» troll stupidity Posted by: PaulC
» RE: troll stupidity Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: troll stupidity Posted by: maxpayne
» Don't be silly Posted by: PaulC
» RE: Don't be silly Posted by: EncinoM
» More right wing crap Posted by: PaulC
» RE: More right wing crap Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: More right wing crap Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: More right wing crap Posted by: EncinoM
» And you know what... Posted by: PaulC
» RE: And you know what... Posted by: EncinoM
The Republicans and some Democrats are owned by the energy cartels, mostly.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Dec 18, 2007 7:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look at what happened to the so-called "Energy Bill" recently:

"Backers of tougher legislation were forced to give up their plan to strip $21 billion in tax breaks, mostly to oil companies, and use the money to subsidize renewable energy lost by a single vote Thursday.
It was the second defeat for Democrats, after Senate Republicans, backed by the White House, blocked an effort to require utilities to get 15 percent of their power from renewable sources. . .

The centerpiece of the bill is a plan to increase. . . the current average of 27.2 miles per gallon for cars and 22.2 mpg for light trucks would rise to a new fleetwide average of 35 mpg by 2020."


Senate energy bill: Tough fuel standards in, renewable package out, Dec 14, SFC

Right. A 10 mile per gallon increase in fuel efficiency over the next 13 years. Given that U.S. energy use seems to increase every year, that means that in 2020 we'll be burning about the same amount of petroleum we do today - if we can get our hands on it, that is. Under business-as-usual, coal use is expected to increase, and liquefied natural gas will be imported, along with tar sand oil from Canada. The energy cartels have demonstrated who controls U.S. politics, once again.

The fact is that the U.S. government continues to subsidize the fossil fuel and nuclear industries, who are all part of the same financial network that controls energy supplies in the United States - Electric utilities, coal companies, nuclear corporations and petroleum refiners all work together.

Take General Electric - a $370 billion dollar mega-conglomerate made up of media (NBC), industrial, finance, and healthcare divisions. Government-paid nuclear construction contracts are good for all branches of General Electric's business - finance for loans, infrastructure for building the reactors, and industrial for selling the power to utilities.

Furthermore, the main shareholders in GE (Capital Research, Barclays, State Street, Vanguard, etc.) all also have major holdings in petroleum, coal and electric utilities. For example, one of the biggest coal users is Southern Co. of the Southeast. Their top 5 shareholders also include State Street, Capital Research, Barclays, and Vanguard.

Everyone knows that nuclear is an expensive and dangerous energy option that has little long-term future - but it does promise massive, government-guaranteed profits for the likes of GE and Bechtel and their associated private utilities and financiers.

In the end, the only concern of the energy cartel is minimizing its cost to produce electricity and maximizing the cost the consumer pays. They want to use the cheapest, dirtiest power sources, they want to operate with zero regulation, and they want to keep the status quo situation, where consumers have no access to other options for energy.

In terms of free market ideology, there is no such thing in the energy world! The modern energy corporation strives to gain monopoly positions in order to control energy prices, Enron-style. They are vertically and horizontally integrated, as GE demonstrates, and are not going to be happy about the massive loss of profits that will occur if everyone switches to renewables, and so they're fighting to keep the world addicted to fossil fuels and nuclear for as long as possible.

By the way, nuclear really is a dead end. There's the uranium issue, the plutonium issue, the terrorism issue, the nuclear weapons proliferation issue, the radioactive fuel rod disposal issue, the decommissioning the reactor core issue, the Chernobyl issue, the cooling water issue, and the Enron-style management issue - to name a few. Solar PV and wind are far cheaper for the consumer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So we shoudl not subsidize alternative energy sources?
Posted by: Sociallibertarian on Dec 18, 2007 8:52 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I also agree with the Cato Institute, which is backing the opposition to these loan guarantees. And I agree with that the taxpayers should not fund another $25 billion worth of reactor construction.

But why should we then subsidize other alternative energy sources when they according to the article is on the verge of a breakthrough.

• solar
• wind
• tidal
• geothermal

Nuclear power is in fact the energy source that will tide us over until the above said can give any support to the energy system, today they are marginal and not cost effective. Nuclear powers cost compared to solar, thermal, tidal and geothermal is much lower.

I was born and raised in Sweden and I do not really understand how US nuclear power is not profitable. Swedish nuclear power is extremely profitable and it supplies 50 % of Sweden’s need for energy. It probably could do the same for the US.

All alternative energy sources requires Goverment support nuclear as well as solar.

However I am not an environemental fundamentalist but an environmental pragmatist, I advocate all energy sources to be used. Ith has always to be a cost and benefit discussion.

Most environmentalist totally lack any concept of economics. The are often totally ignorant of economic reality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sweden's nuclear waste headache. Posted by: Sociallibertarian
» Au contraire, min svenska vän Posted by: eddie torres
» Dreaming of a world of grownups Posted by: eddie torres
» Chernobyl was not Harrisburg Posted by: Sociallibertarian
» Mindless libertarian B.S. Posted by: PaulC
chrisandbarb
Posted by: Chrisandbarb on Dec 18, 2007 9:14 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The anti nuclear people cannot stick to facts they like to inflame with a bunch of false arguments. The false arguments get repeated over and over again by people with no science background.
Nuclear power has its problems, but it produces very little carbon dioxide. The little it produces from construction and mining is no more than construction and mining for the massive amount of solar and wind it would take to replace it. 19% of the current electricity produced is from nuclear power. that nuclear power is there when we need it, not when the winds are just right. You cannot replace it with electricity that only is there when the sun is shining or the winds are just right. If you tried it would take millions of giant windmills (at a large construction carbon cost) to replace it, and it still would not guarentee on a hot windless day you could run your air conditioning. People get fooled into imagining replacing the 100 nuclear units with 100 windmills, when in fact you need thousands of windmills to replace just 1 nuclear plant, and those windmills produce electricity only rarely when the winds are jsut right (not when you need it). So wind can only be used for a small amount of electricity, not as a base load.
The anti-nuc crowd don't let that fact out that you cannot replace the 90% of electricity that comes from gas/nuclear/coal with wind and solar. at best 20% of the nation supply can come from these erratic sources.

Hydro, geothermal, and Nuclear are the only things that are there when you need it and don't produce large CO2.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» had me wondering WTF as well Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» Dishonest posturing Posted by: PaulC
The pro-nuke fools always neglect to mention
Posted by: DaBear on Dec 18, 2007 9:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
nuke fuel: toxic to all life (not just human) for up to 10K years.

But they figure zero CO2 offsets lethal toxicity at extinction levels... sounds like a very intelligent crowd... kinda like lemmings.

electricity base loads: the oft-repeated claim that solar or wind cannot generate "constant" electricity reveals a fundamental inexperience with both power sources. Wind and Solar work best when they are site specific but they have proven successful in mass generation (centralized grid) schemes all over the planet. These are the same folk that insist, even as some have stood on sites that generate steady, reliable, unwavering power loads day after day from wind and solar, that these technologies cannot possibly work.

Again, a brilliant crowd, the pro-nukes are... when the truth is staring them in the face, they insist their truth is more real. God bless 'Merkuh!

The rest of the arguing is just bullshit posing as pseudo-science banter... but OTOH there's always mining the asteroids...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Education Posted by: suprmark
» or lack thereof Posted by: PaulC
» statistics Posted by: Chrisandbarb
Where is all the money coming from?
Posted by: common intelligence on Dec 18, 2007 9:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't figure out how a country (the US) that is tipped to complete economic collapes continues to have money to give to this or any other thing. In the multi-biliions no less.
I mean I want a piece of that action too.

The congress, and executive branch just keeps pulling money out of thin air for crap shoots, band aids and damage control. How is it that we (well, not me!) coughed up $2.46 billion to give to Isarel for military aand "other" financial support? But there is no interest or real effort or value given to taking care of our people, our country.

How many people get shot and killed a day here in the US but we can't get a grip on that. Mean while billions a day are blown in Iraq. Afganistan? Or protecting poor Israel for the imminant threat. Oh, I forgot, It's the trickle down idea.
Well, I'm waiting!

Homeland Security in this country is a joke. Ships can be used as battering rams and polute our water ways(CAlif 2007), Train tressles curiously self combust, curtailing rail traffic (central Calif. 2005). Gas trucks blow up over passes or viaducts( Oakland Calif 2007, at 4 in the morning. Bridges collapse 2006....on and on. Southern Calif extensive wildfires whip out thousands of homes.

Katrina victims are always 1 step forward and 10 steps back as each season threatens that area of the country . Souther Caifornia is burnt out with winter rains threatening to wash it away now. I mean people still have not recouperated from Hurricane Andrew 19**!

And isn't it funny (not humorous) how people can be kicked into the street by loosing their homes or not even have one in the first place,
because of the economic failures of this system (not the peoples fault).

Where as the banks or lending institutions will have to take them back at a lose, put them back on the market below the (illusionary) market value when there are no buyers, (except maybe for foreign owners of bonds sold to them, that the United States is going to have to sell to them in order to make good on our borrowing from their counrties like China?

SO nuclear funding comes into the picture. But not like FDR's New Deal to get America back on it's economic feet. More like to create a black hole and rational to generate revenues to either pay off our nation foreign debt or sell out-right revenue control to the foreign debt holders, so to give them a piece of the American pie they have bought.

Thank the Federal Reserve for putting some more digital entries in the illusionary bak account of the United (in debt) States, so we can give it away!

Whow, it's only my speculation. Maybe I'm just letting my imagination run free? Or is the price of milk too high!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Fossile Fuel and Nuclear Industries are closely linked so the Fed. Gov. is bullish on it
Posted by: yellow on Dec 18, 2007 11:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Big utility firms are the link to both industries. There is money to be made in both toxic energy sources by big energy. Big power generation and transmission which, because of energy deregulation, are rejoined once again will benefit from nukes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's get back together
Posted by: willymack on Dec 18, 2007 11:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Without a renewed sense of community, we'll NEVER accomplish anything meaningful.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» divide and conquer Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
6 new reactors and 2 000 staff at the new Nuclear research institute at the Texas A&M University
Posted by: Sociallibertarian on Dec 18, 2007 1:35 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Texas is building 6 new reactors.

Good for them, I hope that the rest of the US states are as wise.

----------------------------
"Plans call for the Nuclear Power Institute to manage a state-wide effort to provide more than 2000 engineers and technicians needed to staff and operate at least six new nuclear power plants in Texas scheduled to go into operation over the next ten years. The staff needed to operate the additional reactors and generating plants will include technicians with two-year technical degrees, nuclear engineers and engineers in other engineering specialties.

"The Texas A&M University System is uniquely configured with the ideal combination of education, research and service agencies and universities to lead this effort," said Dr. Kemble Bennett, vice chancellor and dean of engineering. "The institute will make a significant impact upon the workforce and economy of the state and nation."

The NPI will oversee expansion of curricula in high schools, junior colleges and four-year institutions to prepare graduates to enter nuclear power-related fields. The institute also will develop recruiting programs aimed at attracting students into fields that would prepare them to enter the nuclear power industry.

South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Co (STPNOC), Luminant (formerly TXU) and Exelon Corp have announced plans to construct six new nuclear power plants in Texas over the next decade.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nuclear Tyranny Inc. Blocking a 100% Sustainable Energy Future
Posted by: channing on Dec 18, 2007 2:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"King CONG"'s doing its best to hide their Addiction to Tyranny and is Directly Threatened by Green Power, Solar Deserts/Wind Farms-Islands/Tidal-Wave/Geothermal:

- New Nuclear power plants cost upwards of $10 Billion each, times 200+ New Plants projected, or, $2 Trillion in Construction Cost Alone;

-Green construction at that level will guarantee a future of 100% Clean, Virtually Unlimited, Permanent and Renewable Energy.

- Nuclear Power commits the Public to 40 Years of Nuclear Waste and Hazardous Materials Operations and an Additional 5-10 Year Clean Up of each of the Proposed Obsolete Power Plants x 300;

- Green Power's technological Handling/Obsolescence requires No Hazardous Duties or Environmental Destructions.

- Nuclear Technology and Fuels would Require 40 years of Security/Industrial/Military Protection and Services Nation-Wide adding additional Trillion$ and Federal/Corporate Invasions of Private Life, Liberty and Happiness;

- Green Power would be Decentralized and a Ubiquitous Component of everyday Life, nearly Impossible to Threaten on any large/significant scale, and would not require Bombs or Missiles to Defend.

- Nuclear Fuels are Already Monopolized and would Assure Future Wars and/or Other Global Evils;

- Green Power cannot be monopolized, are not subject to any known raw-material shortages, and would spread Societal Wealth to a Largely Blue-Collar Industry: Welcome Back Middle Class, Good-Bye Tyrants!

- Nuclear Accidents around the world Will Increase in Direct-Proportion to their Abundance;

- Just Plain Scientific Statistics, whereas Green Power accidents are unremarkable and "normal" industrial incidents.

- Nuclear Power's "Intellectual Property" Requires Tight Governmental Controls and Public/Private Classifications and Protections, Guaranteeing an Expansion of that Black-Hole of US Government Secrecy;

- Green Power can only be Improved and requires No Special Secret Government Big Brother!

- Nuclear Operation Jobs are Few in Number and Limited to Specialized/Classified and generally Military-Educated Professionals;

Green Power means "No More Mr. Inside Guy", and mostly "skills" training at the Local Community College and/or On-the-Job!

- A Nuclear Powered Future is a De Facto Monopoly on Humanity and LifeTime WindFall to the Criminals In And Behind the Bush Administration, in essence, Financing the Global War On Terror, other War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, and a backdoor Fiat of Constitutional Liberties;

Green Power Breaks Their Enterprise Up, removes their Inside-Secretive Framework and Trillion$, and Begins the Important Work of Dismantling The Military/Industrial/Complex.
We, the People, Cannot Afford Massive Criminal Enterprise Any Longer!


Green Power is the Figurative and Literal Dawning of a New Age, and somewhat delayed Launch of Our New Millennium on the Just and Free and Unified People of Earth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Awesome! A Tour do Force! Posted by: PaulC
» More incoherent babble Posted by: PaulC
» Where is your science? Posted by: suprmark
» Where is your brain? Posted by: PaulC
» RE: Where is your brain? Posted by: suprmark
» RE: Where is your brain? Posted by: channing
When did progressive become luddites? n/m
Posted by: EncinoM on Dec 18, 2007 3:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
n/m

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Green equals smart! Posted by: PaulC
500 Organizations Sign No Nuclear Power Statement
Posted by: channing on Dec 18, 2007 3:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To the Trolls:

"More than 500 organizations from every corner of the U.S. and across the world have signed a statement explicitly rejecting the use of nuclear power as a means of addressing the climate crisis.

The signers include many of the world’s largest and most influential environmental organizations, such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth International, Sierra Club, Clean Water Action, Rainforest Action Network and many others...

"The statement, signed (as of December 17, 2007) by 515 organizations, states simply: "We do not support construction of new nuclear reactors as a means of addressing the climate crisis. Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power."

The statement has been translated into French, Spanish, Russian and Ukrainian."


from here and here

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

With Us For The Next 10000 Years
Posted by: nherkowitz on Dec 18, 2007 4:25 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nuclear energy, with us, whether we like it or not, for the next ten thousand years.

-Proctor & Bergman (Firesign Theatre)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't forget: Coal is the problem
Posted by: jsong123 on Dec 18, 2007 8:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wind? I'd like to see 20%. There is an AWEA plan to get to 20% by 2030. A few years ago the plan was to get there by 2020, but anyway, let's go.

http://tinyurl.com/ypr6b7

OK there is 20%. You still need to knock out coal.

Don't waste time putting wind against nuclear.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

subsidy??
Posted by: gellero on Dec 19, 2007 11:16 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since when is a 'loan guarantee' a subsidy??

Only in the Alternative Reality of AlterNet

The 'progressive' mindset is anything but......Luddites to the last.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

France and Japan are not right wing Cheney Kool-Aid drinkers
Posted by: Chrisandbarb on Dec 20, 2007 8:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While debating Nuclear Power please avoid leaping to the belief that Nuclear Power advocates are Cheney Right Wing Kool Aid drinkers.

My politics are similar to those of where my parents were born (France). France is hardly right wing Cheney suupporters (Sarkozy aside). The average French person makes Kucinich look conservative, yet is Pro-nuclear.

Japan is very anti-nuclear bombs, yet moving to build many nuclear plants.

Sweden and Germany hate nuclear, but continue being nuclear because they see it as necessary to remain economically sound while reducing green house gasses.

India, china also adding nuclear.

No country plans on being more than 20% solar and wind. France has been 85% nuclear for decades (thank you France for reducing your carbon foot print for these decades). If solar and wind were so great wouldn't some industrialized country somewhere be doing more of it?

Here in America we have too much coal, and coal has to strong a lobby to weaken a good alternative with lies and inflame people to be anti-nuc. If you continue to lie and inflate the problems of Nuclear you only drive people to coal not to Solar and wind. Speak the truth about them all and coal will lose out to nuclear. But, continue to overinflate the problems of Nuclear and you will only make coal the winner.

No matter your religious or economic belief system. Nuclear makes sense. If it did not France and Germany and Swedan and Japan would not all be Nuclear.

They cannot agree on anything else (religion, wars, politics, economics) yet agree on nuclear.

Nuclear is not a right wing conspiracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Case Closed on Nuclear Tyranny Inc.
Posted by: channing on Dec 20, 2007 4:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The list of environmental and civil hazards is a 50+ year chronicle of high security-risk and environmental destruction.

The DU issue alone precludes further rational debate ("A large nuclear reactor produces 3 cubic metres (25-30 tonnes) of spent fuel each year"), but in my post above, I list several others of monstrous-proportions, any one of which abolishes sane support for a world dependent on current nuclear technology or the people behind it.

If we already had stable, commercial fusion reactors, nuclear might have that going for it at ten-times the efficiency of fission, but that's 10-20 years away at best, and will inevitably include trillions in additional metallurgical and infrastructure/security investments.

Personally I'm in favor of continued exploration of nuclear science, like Russia's floating desalinization/power vessels, because I believe there are valid specialized uses for the technology that we haven't even thought of yet. But when it comes to depending on every-day energy demands, nuclear does not hold a candle to Solar Deserts.

Our SUN is the Perfect Permanent Fusion Reactor Operating

Completely independent of Earth and its Resources, and supplying the equivalent of many thousands of times as much energy to the Earth as we currently consume from all other "King CONG" sources, converted at today's efficiencies and today's technology; A Global High Tension Grid (HTG), connecting Concentrated Solar Arrays (CSA) located on 1/700th the footprint of the deserts would 100% Supply All Energy Today.

No Hazardous Materials/Clean Ups
No Specialized/Classified Technology
No Classified/Specialized Skills
No Specialized Security Requirements/Threats
No Resource Wars
No Classified Intellectual Property
No Monopolized Energy
No CO2
No Warming (In fact, CSA's have a net Cooling effect)
Yes Abundant Desalinization
Yes Sustainable
Yes Permanent
Yes Expanded Blue-Collar Middle Class World Wide
Yes Compatible with Complimentary/Independent Energy Products incl. Wind, etc.,
Yes Practical and Doable Now

The Universe's Supply of Natural Energy to Earth, which gave all of US Life and will continue doing so for another 4-10 billion years, without ONE NEW REACTOR, is Ready Now for Harnessing!

Check the link, and see that the nuclear trolls and otherwise misinformed do not mislead you into another century of UnProgress.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]