By Todd White
Oct. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Nuclear power and “large-scale” hydroelectric plants were excluded from a list of sources that a new climate treaty may recommend developing countries such as China use in efforts to curb greenhouse-gas emissions.
Splitting atoms and damming rivers “have adverse impacts on the environment,” according to a draft approved by a United Nations working group at international climate talks among about 180 nations in Bangkok. The document was published on a UN Web site and dated Oct. 8.
Atomic energy and hydropower have been promoted by governments as climate-friendly because they produce far fewer greenhouse gases than generators that burn coal or natural gas. China and India both plan new atomic-energy plants. They are among developing countries at the talks that were asked by industrial nations to reduce their growth of emissions in return for clean-energy project funding from richer countries.
If the nuclear and hydro provision becomes part of a treaty “it means they cannot be supported through public funding from developed countries,” said Benito Mueller, director of environment at Oxford University’s Institute for Energy Studies. It won’t likely stop them from being built, he said.
The UN has spent almost two years drawing up lists of clean-energy “actions” that nations may voluntarily employ to reach national goals for reducing global-warming gases.
While some nations would like to make these mitigation actions mandatory, there’s no assurance they will ever become binding under a new treaty, said Kaisa Kosonen, a political adviser at Greenpeace who monitored the talks in Bangkok.
The talks end today in Bangkok and resume Nov. 2 before concluding in December in Copenhagen.
Last Updated: October 9, 2009 09:16 EDT
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601130&sid=at37MphxIxGY
Friday, October 9, 2009
Friends of the Earth Statement on the Kerry-Boxer Draft Climate Bill
Comment: No to Nuke Power and all dirty power!
Submitted by RConnors on Wed, 09/30/2009 - 12:38
Global Warming Government and IndustryEnergyInternational
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Ben Schreiber, 202-222-0752, bschreiber@foe.org
Elizabeth Bast, 202-641-7203, ebast@foe.org
Friends of the Earth Statement on the Kerry-Boxer Draft Climate Bill (REVISED**)
Washington, D.C.— Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica had the following statement in response to the Kerry-Boxer draft climate bill:
"We commend Senators Boxer and Kerry for their dedication to combating the important problem of climate change but we cannot support a bill that fails to solve the problem. Overall the draft is riddled with loopholes and does not go far enough to protect the planet.
Areas of concern include:
· Emissions Cap: Science demands at least a 40% reduction in emissions, compared to 1990, by 2020. The draft bill has emissions reductions targets of about 20 percent below 2005 levels – nowhere near what a fair U.S. contribution to a global emissions reductions should be to avert climate catastrophe
· Offset Loopholes: The extensive use of unreliable offsets in this draft bill, up to 2 billion tons a year, seriously undermines the integrity of the already weak emissions cap and delays the health, environmental, and economic benefits of shifting to a low-carbon economy.
· Methane Regulations: The House-passed bill would require emissions from landfills, coal mines and natural gas pipelines to be regulated, but under the Kerry-Boxer draft, these sources can voluntarily capture methane in exchange for offset payments.
· Markets Regulations: The bill would creative a massive, new and complex commodities market with almost no specifics on how that market would be regulated.
· Subsidizes Dirty Energy: The bill gives special subsidies to expensive, unsafe and environmentally damaging technologies such as nuclear reactors and carbon capture and sequestration and capture for coal plants, not to mention ambiguous incentives for biofuels.
Friends of the Earth's policy team will be taking a deeper look at the bill in further days and release a more detailed analysis at a later date so that we can work with the Senate to pass legislation that will fairly and effectively address the problem of climate change."
**Upon on a more thorough reading of the draft bill, we acknowledge that the Clean Air Act section of our previous statement was not an accurate reflection of the bill’s text.
###
Friends of the Earth (www.foe.org ) and our network of grassroots groups in 77 countries fight to defend the environment and create a more healthy, just world. We're progressive environmental advocates who pull no punches and speak sometimes uncomfortable truths to power. Our current campaigns focus on clean energy and solutions to global warming, protecting people from toxic and new, potentially harmful technologies, and promoting smarter, low-pollution transportation alternative.
http://www.foe.org/friends-earth-statement-kerry-boxer-draft-climate-bill
Global Warming Government and IndustryEnergyInternational
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Ben Schreiber, 202-222-0752, bschreiber@foe.org
Elizabeth Bast, 202-641-7203, ebast@foe.org
Friends of the Earth Statement on the Kerry-Boxer Draft Climate Bill (REVISED**)
Washington, D.C.— Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica had the following statement in response to the Kerry-Boxer draft climate bill:
"We commend Senators Boxer and Kerry for their dedication to combating the important problem of climate change but we cannot support a bill that fails to solve the problem. Overall the draft is riddled with loopholes and does not go far enough to protect the planet.
Areas of concern include:
· Emissions Cap: Science demands at least a 40% reduction in emissions, compared to 1990, by 2020. The draft bill has emissions reductions targets of about 20 percent below 2005 levels – nowhere near what a fair U.S. contribution to a global emissions reductions should be to avert climate catastrophe
· Offset Loopholes: The extensive use of unreliable offsets in this draft bill, up to 2 billion tons a year, seriously undermines the integrity of the already weak emissions cap and delays the health, environmental, and economic benefits of shifting to a low-carbon economy.
· Methane Regulations: The House-passed bill would require emissions from landfills, coal mines and natural gas pipelines to be regulated, but under the Kerry-Boxer draft, these sources can voluntarily capture methane in exchange for offset payments.
· Markets Regulations: The bill would creative a massive, new and complex commodities market with almost no specifics on how that market would be regulated.
· Subsidizes Dirty Energy: The bill gives special subsidies to expensive, unsafe and environmentally damaging technologies such as nuclear reactors and carbon capture and sequestration and capture for coal plants, not to mention ambiguous incentives for biofuels.
Friends of the Earth's policy team will be taking a deeper look at the bill in further days and release a more detailed analysis at a later date so that we can work with the Senate to pass legislation that will fairly and effectively address the problem of climate change."
**Upon on a more thorough reading of the draft bill, we acknowledge that the Clean Air Act section of our previous statement was not an accurate reflection of the bill’s text.
###
Friends of the Earth (www.foe.org ) and our network of grassroots groups in 77 countries fight to defend the environment and create a more healthy, just world. We're progressive environmental advocates who pull no punches and speak sometimes uncomfortable truths to power. Our current campaigns focus on clean energy and solutions to global warming, protecting people from toxic and new, potentially harmful technologies, and promoting smarter, low-pollution transportation alternative.
http://www.foe.org/friends-earth-statement-kerry-boxer-draft-climate-bill
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
a hard rain (problems with nuclear power)
Comment: Why is Virginia chasing nuke power, you should have seen the bunch I saw today that is supposed to represent the people of VA. They are willing to blow up our hills for uranium mining for nuke plants! No to Nuke Power and No to Uranium Mining!
View excerpt of A Hard Rain:
A Hard Rain
This is a documentary that had to be made! Twice Academy award nominee and five times AFI winner David Bradbury’s latest contribution, A Hard Rain, explores the ‘other side’ of the nuclear debate.
Governments and most mainstream media are promoting that nuclear is now an attractive alternative to fossil fuels – the magic fix that will save us all from global warming. Nuclear power has taken on a clean and green spin from the low point 20 years ago which saw the Chernobyl meltdown.
Traversing five countries – China, France, UK, Japan and Australia, and using what Bradbury learnt from his previous three nuclear documentaries (Public Enemy Number One, Jabiluka and Blowin' in the Wind), A Hard Rain takes a closer look at the global nuclear industry in its entirety – from the mining of uranium through to the nuclear power plant to the radioactive waste and weapons manufacturing. It exposes the hidden agendas behind this latest push for Australia to go nuclear.
Included are interviews with some of the world's top scientists and environmentalists on the subject such as Dr Rosalie Bertell from Canada, Dr Chris Busby from the UK, and from Australia, Dr Mark Diesendorf (Ex CSIRO) from the Environmental Institute at the University of NSW, Prof. Ian Lowe, President of the Australian Conservation Foundation, and Dr Gavin Mudd from the Monash University Engineering Department.
Interviews with traditional owners who have been locked out of genuine consultation with what is happening on their country is also included in this film.
By looking at the experience of countries overseas that have gone nuclear, A Hard Rain debunks some of the myths of the nuclear industry: that nuclear is safe, cheap, health and green with little chance of another Chernobyl happening.
If you want vital and factual information to debate the issue intelligently and overthrow the myths that the nuclear and pro uranium mining lobby has so successfully implanted in the media, in the government and the Labor Party, then this documentary is a must see.
http://www.frontlinefilms.com.au/videos/hardrain.htm
View excerpt of A Hard Rain:
A Hard Rain
This is a documentary that had to be made! Twice Academy award nominee and five times AFI winner David Bradbury’s latest contribution, A Hard Rain, explores the ‘other side’ of the nuclear debate.
Governments and most mainstream media are promoting that nuclear is now an attractive alternative to fossil fuels – the magic fix that will save us all from global warming. Nuclear power has taken on a clean and green spin from the low point 20 years ago which saw the Chernobyl meltdown.
Traversing five countries – China, France, UK, Japan and Australia, and using what Bradbury learnt from his previous three nuclear documentaries (Public Enemy Number One, Jabiluka and Blowin' in the Wind), A Hard Rain takes a closer look at the global nuclear industry in its entirety – from the mining of uranium through to the nuclear power plant to the radioactive waste and weapons manufacturing. It exposes the hidden agendas behind this latest push for Australia to go nuclear.
Included are interviews with some of the world's top scientists and environmentalists on the subject such as Dr Rosalie Bertell from Canada, Dr Chris Busby from the UK, and from Australia, Dr Mark Diesendorf (Ex CSIRO) from the Environmental Institute at the University of NSW, Prof. Ian Lowe, President of the Australian Conservation Foundation, and Dr Gavin Mudd from the Monash University Engineering Department.
Interviews with traditional owners who have been locked out of genuine consultation with what is happening on their country is also included in this film.
By looking at the experience of countries overseas that have gone nuclear, A Hard Rain debunks some of the myths of the nuclear industry: that nuclear is safe, cheap, health and green with little chance of another Chernobyl happening.
If you want vital and factual information to debate the issue intelligently and overthrow the myths that the nuclear and pro uranium mining lobby has so successfully implanted in the media, in the government and the Labor Party, then this documentary is a must see.
http://www.frontlinefilms.com.au/videos/hardrain.htm
Kazatomprom; Areva join forces to market nuclear fuel
Comment: Taking advantage of the poor!
The pair are aiming at the Asian market
Posted: Tuesday , 06 Oct 2009
ALMATY (Reuters) -
France's Areva (CEPFi.PA: Quote) and Kazakh state nuclear company Kazatomprom said on Tuesday they were setting up a joint venture to market uranium fuel and were considering joint production.
The venture, IFASTAR, will research the Asian market for nuclear fuel and run a feasibility study for a project to produce fuel in Kazakhstan, the companies said in a statement.
Areva will have a controlling stake in IFASTAR.
"This confirms the strategy of Areva and Kazatomprom, the companies producing about 30% of global uranium output, to strengthen positions in Asia," the companies said in a joint statement.
They said planned joint nuclear fuel production at the Kazakh Ulbinsky plant would be handled by a separate venture and Kazatomprom would have a controlling stake in it. (Writing by Olzhas Auyezov; Editing by Greg Mahlich)
http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page504?oid=90286&sn=Detail
The pair are aiming at the Asian market
Posted: Tuesday , 06 Oct 2009
ALMATY (Reuters) -
France's Areva (CEPFi.PA: Quote) and Kazakh state nuclear company Kazatomprom said on Tuesday they were setting up a joint venture to market uranium fuel and were considering joint production.
The venture, IFASTAR, will research the Asian market for nuclear fuel and run a feasibility study for a project to produce fuel in Kazakhstan, the companies said in a statement.
Areva will have a controlling stake in IFASTAR.
"This confirms the strategy of Areva and Kazatomprom, the companies producing about 30% of global uranium output, to strengthen positions in Asia," the companies said in a joint statement.
They said planned joint nuclear fuel production at the Kazakh Ulbinsky plant would be handled by a separate venture and Kazatomprom would have a controlling stake in it. (Writing by Olzhas Auyezov; Editing by Greg Mahlich)
http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page504?oid=90286&sn=Detail
Nuclear Power - One of Humankind's Biggest Mistakes
by Jim Bell
01 February 2009
Nuclear Power was a mistake and remains a mistake. If the human family survives it, our descendants will wonder what we were thinking to justify leaving them nuclear power's toxic legacy -- a legacy they will be dealing with for hundreds if not thousands of generations.
And why did we do it? To power our lights, TVs, radios, stereos, air conditioners, etc. and the tools we used to make them.
Our creation of nuclear power will be especially difficult for our descendants to understand because they will know that in the nuclear era, we already had all the technologies and know-how needed to power everything in ways that are perpetually recyclable, powered by free solar energy and which leave zero harmful residues in their wake.
On its own, nuclear power's toxic radioactive legacy should be enough to give any thinking person sufficient reason to want to eliminate it as quickly as possible and do everything to protect our descendants from the radioactive wastes already created.
The human family has been at war with itself for the majority of its history. Human history is full of successful, advanced and sophisticated civilizations that utterly collapsed. To the informed, even our current civilization(s) don't feel very solid. Plus there are earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, severe weather, terrorism, and just plain human error. This given, who can guarantee that anything as dangerous and long-lived as nuclear waste can be kept safe for even 100 years much less the hundreds to hundreds of thousands of years it will take before some of these wastes are safe to be around.
And even if an insurance company did guarantee its safety, what is their guarantee worth? What could they do to protect us and future generations if San Onofre's spent fuel storage pond lost its coolant water. If this happened an almost unquenchable radioactive fire would spontaneously erupt, spewing radioactive materials wherever the wind blew for weeks if not months -- rendering Southern California a dangerous place to live for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years.
Notwithstanding the above, the nuclear industry is lobbying the public and the government to continue supporting them politically and economically so the industry can expand.
Its latest rational is that nuclear power will produce fewer greenhouse gases than what would be produced using fossil fuels to make electricity. This is true if one only looks at what happens inside a reactor. It's not true when accounting for all the fossil fuel energy consumed during nuclear power's fuel cycle, and what it takes to build, operate and dismantle plants when they wear out. Additionally, even if nuclear power was ended today, fossil fuel energy must be consumed for millennia in order to protect the public from the radioactive residues that nuclear power has already generated.
An increasing number of former industry and non-industry experts are saying that at best nuclear power releases slightly fewer greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than if the fossil fuels embodied in it had been burned to make electricity directly.
In his 2002 book, Asleep at the Geiger Counter, p. 107-118, Sidney Goodman, (giving the industry the benefit of the doubt on a number of fronts and assuming no serious accidents or terrorism), concludes that the net output of the typical nuclear power plant would be only 4% more than if the fossil fuels embodied in it had been used directly to produce electricity. This means, best-case scenario, replacing direct fossil fuel generated electricity with nuclear generated electricity will only reduce the carbon dioxide released per unit of electricity produced by 4%. Goodman is a long practicing licensed Professional Engineer with a Masters Degree in Mechanical Engineering.
Other experts believe that nuclear power will produce about the same amount of energy as was, is, and will be consumed to create, operate and deal with its aftermath. This case was made in an article published in Pergamon Journals Ltd. Vol.13, No. 1, 1988, P. 139, titled "The Net Energy Yield of Nuclear Power." In their article the authors concluded that even without including the energy that has or would be consumed to mitigate past or future serious radioactive releases, nuclear power is only "the re-embodiment of the energy that went into creating it."
In its July/August 2006 edition, The Ecologist Magazine, a respected British publication, featured a 16-page analysis of nuclear power. One of the conclusions was that nuclear power does not even produce enough electricity to make up for the fossil fuels consumed just to mine, mill and otherwise process uranium ore into nuclear fuel, much less all the other energy inputs required This is not surprising given that typical U-235 ore concentrations of .01% to .02%, require mining, crushing and processing a ton of ore to end up with 1/2 oz to 1 oz of nuclear reactor fuel. To put this in perspective, the typical 1,000 MW nuclear power plants uses around 33 tons or over 1 million oz of nuclear fuel each year.
As a teenager I saw a TV program that showed a man holding a piece of metal in the palm of his hand. He was saying that if what he held was pure uranium it would contain as much energy as the train full of coal that was passing by him on the screen. I became an instant "true believer" in nuclear power. I thought if something that small can produce the same amount of energy as all that coal, there will be plenty of energy and therefore plenty of money to address any dangers that using it might pose.
Unfortunately, to get that level of energy from a small amount of pure or near pure uranium it would require that it be exploded as an atomic bomb. Of the uranium used in a reactor, only a fraction of the energy in pure uranium gets used. That's why we are left with depleted uranium and other long-lived wastes.
The nuclear industry says that nuclear power is safe, a big net energy producer, and that it will be cheap and easy to keep its wastes out of the environment and out of the hands of terrorists.
But if these claims are true, why has an industry that supplies only 8% of our country's total energy and 20% of its electricity consumed hundreds of billions of tax dollar subsidies since its inception? Now in 2009, the industry is lobbying for $50 billion in loan guarantees on top of the $18.5 billion already allocated by the Bush administration.
If nuclear power is so safe and wonderful, why does it require the Price Anderson Act? The Price Anderson Act puts taxpayers on the hook if the cost of a major radioactive release exceeds $10.5 billion. According to a Sandia National Laboratory analysis, this puts taxpayers on the hook for over $600 billion to cover the damage that a serious radioactive release would cause. Another Sandia Laboratory study focusing just on the Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York, concluded the damage caused by a serious release from that plant could cost up to a trillion dollars. Needless to say, any serious radioactive release from any U. S. plant would wipe out any net energy gain by nuclear power if -- there ever was one.
Realizing the potential cost of a serious radioactive release, manufacturers, insurers and utilities, were unwilling to build, insure or order plants. They only got seriously involved after the Congress assigned these cost to the taxpaying public. On page 7 of a report by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research titled The Nuclear Power Deception, they included the following 1996 quote from then NRC Commissioner James Asselstine, "given the present level of safety being achieved by the operating nuclear power plants in this country, we can expect a meltdown within the next 20 years, and it is possible that such as accident could result in off-site releases of radiation which are as large as, or larger than the released estimates to have occurred at Chernobyl." Bear in mind, a meltdown is only one of several things that could happen with nuclear power to cause a serious radioactive release.
As I said in the beginning, nuclear power is a mistake. Especially considering we already have all the technologies and know-how needed to make us completely and abundantly renewable energy self-sufficient. Solar energy leaves no radioactive residues for our children or future generations. Additionally, although not completely environmentally benign yet, solar energy collection systems can be designed to last generations, be perpetually recyclable and leave zero toxic residues behind. If San Diego County covered 24% of its roofs and parking lots with PV panels, it would produce more electricity than the county consumes. This assumes that 3 million resident use, on average, 10 kWh per capita per day after installing cost-effective electricity use efficiency improvements.
For ourselves, our children and future generations, let's move into the solar age.
_ _ _ _ _
Jim Bell is an ecological designer, author, and lecturer. He ran for Mayor of San Diego in 1996, 2000, and 2004. His honors include: The Society of Energy Engineers’ Environmental Professional of the year for the Southwestern States, a "Beyond War" award, and a City of San Diego Water Conservation Design Award. For details read his free books, visit jimbell.com
http://culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=307&Itemid=1
01 February 2009
Nuclear Power was a mistake and remains a mistake. If the human family survives it, our descendants will wonder what we were thinking to justify leaving them nuclear power's toxic legacy -- a legacy they will be dealing with for hundreds if not thousands of generations.
And why did we do it? To power our lights, TVs, radios, stereos, air conditioners, etc. and the tools we used to make them.
Our creation of nuclear power will be especially difficult for our descendants to understand because they will know that in the nuclear era, we already had all the technologies and know-how needed to power everything in ways that are perpetually recyclable, powered by free solar energy and which leave zero harmful residues in their wake.
On its own, nuclear power's toxic radioactive legacy should be enough to give any thinking person sufficient reason to want to eliminate it as quickly as possible and do everything to protect our descendants from the radioactive wastes already created.
The human family has been at war with itself for the majority of its history. Human history is full of successful, advanced and sophisticated civilizations that utterly collapsed. To the informed, even our current civilization(s) don't feel very solid. Plus there are earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, severe weather, terrorism, and just plain human error. This given, who can guarantee that anything as dangerous and long-lived as nuclear waste can be kept safe for even 100 years much less the hundreds to hundreds of thousands of years it will take before some of these wastes are safe to be around.
And even if an insurance company did guarantee its safety, what is their guarantee worth? What could they do to protect us and future generations if San Onofre's spent fuel storage pond lost its coolant water. If this happened an almost unquenchable radioactive fire would spontaneously erupt, spewing radioactive materials wherever the wind blew for weeks if not months -- rendering Southern California a dangerous place to live for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years.
Notwithstanding the above, the nuclear industry is lobbying the public and the government to continue supporting them politically and economically so the industry can expand.
Its latest rational is that nuclear power will produce fewer greenhouse gases than what would be produced using fossil fuels to make electricity. This is true if one only looks at what happens inside a reactor. It's not true when accounting for all the fossil fuel energy consumed during nuclear power's fuel cycle, and what it takes to build, operate and dismantle plants when they wear out. Additionally, even if nuclear power was ended today, fossil fuel energy must be consumed for millennia in order to protect the public from the radioactive residues that nuclear power has already generated.
An increasing number of former industry and non-industry experts are saying that at best nuclear power releases slightly fewer greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than if the fossil fuels embodied in it had been burned to make electricity directly.
In his 2002 book, Asleep at the Geiger Counter, p. 107-118, Sidney Goodman, (giving the industry the benefit of the doubt on a number of fronts and assuming no serious accidents or terrorism), concludes that the net output of the typical nuclear power plant would be only 4% more than if the fossil fuels embodied in it had been used directly to produce electricity. This means, best-case scenario, replacing direct fossil fuel generated electricity with nuclear generated electricity will only reduce the carbon dioxide released per unit of electricity produced by 4%. Goodman is a long practicing licensed Professional Engineer with a Masters Degree in Mechanical Engineering.
Other experts believe that nuclear power will produce about the same amount of energy as was, is, and will be consumed to create, operate and deal with its aftermath. This case was made in an article published in Pergamon Journals Ltd. Vol.13, No. 1, 1988, P. 139, titled "The Net Energy Yield of Nuclear Power." In their article the authors concluded that even without including the energy that has or would be consumed to mitigate past or future serious radioactive releases, nuclear power is only "the re-embodiment of the energy that went into creating it."
In its July/August 2006 edition, The Ecologist Magazine, a respected British publication, featured a 16-page analysis of nuclear power. One of the conclusions was that nuclear power does not even produce enough electricity to make up for the fossil fuels consumed just to mine, mill and otherwise process uranium ore into nuclear fuel, much less all the other energy inputs required This is not surprising given that typical U-235 ore concentrations of .01% to .02%, require mining, crushing and processing a ton of ore to end up with 1/2 oz to 1 oz of nuclear reactor fuel. To put this in perspective, the typical 1,000 MW nuclear power plants uses around 33 tons or over 1 million oz of nuclear fuel each year.
As a teenager I saw a TV program that showed a man holding a piece of metal in the palm of his hand. He was saying that if what he held was pure uranium it would contain as much energy as the train full of coal that was passing by him on the screen. I became an instant "true believer" in nuclear power. I thought if something that small can produce the same amount of energy as all that coal, there will be plenty of energy and therefore plenty of money to address any dangers that using it might pose.
Unfortunately, to get that level of energy from a small amount of pure or near pure uranium it would require that it be exploded as an atomic bomb. Of the uranium used in a reactor, only a fraction of the energy in pure uranium gets used. That's why we are left with depleted uranium and other long-lived wastes.
The nuclear industry says that nuclear power is safe, a big net energy producer, and that it will be cheap and easy to keep its wastes out of the environment and out of the hands of terrorists.
But if these claims are true, why has an industry that supplies only 8% of our country's total energy and 20% of its electricity consumed hundreds of billions of tax dollar subsidies since its inception? Now in 2009, the industry is lobbying for $50 billion in loan guarantees on top of the $18.5 billion already allocated by the Bush administration.
If nuclear power is so safe and wonderful, why does it require the Price Anderson Act? The Price Anderson Act puts taxpayers on the hook if the cost of a major radioactive release exceeds $10.5 billion. According to a Sandia National Laboratory analysis, this puts taxpayers on the hook for over $600 billion to cover the damage that a serious radioactive release would cause. Another Sandia Laboratory study focusing just on the Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York, concluded the damage caused by a serious release from that plant could cost up to a trillion dollars. Needless to say, any serious radioactive release from any U. S. plant would wipe out any net energy gain by nuclear power if -- there ever was one.
Realizing the potential cost of a serious radioactive release, manufacturers, insurers and utilities, were unwilling to build, insure or order plants. They only got seriously involved after the Congress assigned these cost to the taxpaying public. On page 7 of a report by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research titled The Nuclear Power Deception, they included the following 1996 quote from then NRC Commissioner James Asselstine, "given the present level of safety being achieved by the operating nuclear power plants in this country, we can expect a meltdown within the next 20 years, and it is possible that such as accident could result in off-site releases of radiation which are as large as, or larger than the released estimates to have occurred at Chernobyl." Bear in mind, a meltdown is only one of several things that could happen with nuclear power to cause a serious radioactive release.
As I said in the beginning, nuclear power is a mistake. Especially considering we already have all the technologies and know-how needed to make us completely and abundantly renewable energy self-sufficient. Solar energy leaves no radioactive residues for our children or future generations. Additionally, although not completely environmentally benign yet, solar energy collection systems can be designed to last generations, be perpetually recyclable and leave zero toxic residues behind. If San Diego County covered 24% of its roofs and parking lots with PV panels, it would produce more electricity than the county consumes. This assumes that 3 million resident use, on average, 10 kWh per capita per day after installing cost-effective electricity use efficiency improvements.
For ourselves, our children and future generations, let's move into the solar age.
_ _ _ _ _
Jim Bell is an ecological designer, author, and lecturer. He ran for Mayor of San Diego in 1996, 2000, and 2004. His honors include: The Society of Energy Engineers’ Environmental Professional of the year for the Southwestern States, a "Beyond War" award, and a City of San Diego Water Conservation Design Award. For details read his free books, visit jimbell.com
http://culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=307&Itemid=1
India, US hope to clinch agreement on reprocessing n-fuel
Comment: I feel for the India's people, reprocessing is a failure for France and ruin the English Channel where the waste was dump! People of India, you need Greenpeace to stop this now!
October 04, 2009 18:41 IST
India and the US may clinch the much-awaited "arrangements and procedures" agreement on reprocessing the spent nuclear fuel of American origin when they meet in Vienna [ Images ] soon. The talks between officials of the nuclear establishments of the two countries are expected to take place within the next fortnight and will be observed very closely by US companies which are keen to set up nuclear power plants in India.
The first round of talks in July in Vienna were "very surprising for both the sides", sources close to the negotiators said.
Department of Atomic Energy officials also said the two sides had made "good progress" in the first round of discussions and were optimistic that agreement could be clinched "in a couple of months". The talks are being considered as a significant step to take forward the operationalisation of the Indo-US nuclear deal.
The consultations are being based strictly on Article 6 (III) of the 123 agreement between India and the US. According to the agreement, to bring reprocessing rights into effect, India has to establish a new national facility dedicated to reprocessing safeguarded nuclear material under the safeguards of International Atomic Energy Agency.
Also, India has to reach an agreement with the US on "arrangements and procedures" under which such reprocessing will take place in this new facility.
Conclusion of the talks is crucial for the US companies to start nuclear commerce with India. US energy majors --Westinghouse-Toshiba and GE-Hitachi have inked pacts with state-run Nuclear Power Corporation for setting up nuclear parks in India.
India has earmarked two sites -- Mithi Virdi in Gujarat and Kovada in Andhra Pradesh -- to host the US nuclear reactor parks.
Designation of the sites was advocated by the US-India Business Council, the Washington-based trade group that championed the successful US initiative to end the global ban against commercial nuclear trade with India.
In September last year, the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group amended its rules to permit India to engage in international trade in commercial nuclear equipment, fuel and technology.
In the year since, India has moved forward signing nuclear cooperation agreements with Russia [ Images ], France [ Images ], Namibia and Kazakhstan.
Besides the US, France and Russia will also develop nuclear parks in the country with each park hosting between six and eight atomic reactors.
Russia is already building two reactors at Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu, while France's Areva has been allocated Jaitapur site in Maharashtra to set up nuclear plants.
http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/oct/04/ndeal-inda-us-to-clinch-deal-on-reprocessing-nuke-fuel.htm
October 04, 2009 18:41 IST
India and the US may clinch the much-awaited "arrangements and procedures" agreement on reprocessing the spent nuclear fuel of American origin when they meet in Vienna [ Images ] soon. The talks between officials of the nuclear establishments of the two countries are expected to take place within the next fortnight and will be observed very closely by US companies which are keen to set up nuclear power plants in India.
The first round of talks in July in Vienna were "very surprising for both the sides", sources close to the negotiators said.
Department of Atomic Energy officials also said the two sides had made "good progress" in the first round of discussions and were optimistic that agreement could be clinched "in a couple of months". The talks are being considered as a significant step to take forward the operationalisation of the Indo-US nuclear deal.
The consultations are being based strictly on Article 6 (III) of the 123 agreement between India and the US. According to the agreement, to bring reprocessing rights into effect, India has to establish a new national facility dedicated to reprocessing safeguarded nuclear material under the safeguards of International Atomic Energy Agency.
Also, India has to reach an agreement with the US on "arrangements and procedures" under which such reprocessing will take place in this new facility.
Conclusion of the talks is crucial for the US companies to start nuclear commerce with India. US energy majors --Westinghouse-Toshiba and GE-Hitachi have inked pacts with state-run Nuclear Power Corporation for setting up nuclear parks in India.
India has earmarked two sites -- Mithi Virdi in Gujarat and Kovada in Andhra Pradesh -- to host the US nuclear reactor parks.
Designation of the sites was advocated by the US-India Business Council, the Washington-based trade group that championed the successful US initiative to end the global ban against commercial nuclear trade with India.
In September last year, the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group amended its rules to permit India to engage in international trade in commercial nuclear equipment, fuel and technology.
In the year since, India has moved forward signing nuclear cooperation agreements with Russia [ Images ], France [ Images ], Namibia and Kazakhstan.
Besides the US, France and Russia will also develop nuclear parks in the country with each park hosting between six and eight atomic reactors.
Russia is already building two reactors at Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu, while France's Areva has been allocated Jaitapur site in Maharashtra to set up nuclear plants.
http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/oct/04/ndeal-inda-us-to-clinch-deal-on-reprocessing-nuke-fuel.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
