Stimulus Bill Is the Bomb

From the Peace Team:

We've heard President Obama on the TV alot talking about how he's promoting wind and solar power in the new stimulus bill. But in the Senate version of the bill, it's all a great, big, honking FRAUD, because the 50 billion in loan guarantees for "eligible technologies" there has been deceptively defined so that most of that money will instead go to finance nuclear and filthy coal power plants instead.

We know this because Republican Senator Bennett from Utah made sure that was the intent when he snuck this provision into the bill in the Appropriations Committee. Why it is still there after Bennett himself voted against the whole package is an outrage. But because the House bill lacks this garbage provision, we still have a chance to remove it in the reconciliation between the Senate and house versions.

And if that weren't bad enough, there is another billion for new nuclear weapons development. That's not the kind of infrastructure we were promised.

Because of the urgency of this action, please call your members of Congress toll-free at 800-828-0498 or 800-459-1887 to raise an immediate fuss about this. Then submit the action page below as well as a follow up.

No Nuclear/Coal Subsidies In Stimulus Bill:
http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum934.php
What a cruel and dishonest trick on the American people if this is all allowed to pass, to foist the sludge spill disasters of the future on us, in the sheep's clothing of a green energy spirit, which is what we thought we were all voting for in the last election.

All they've talked about for years is how vulnerable nuclear power plants would be to a possible terrorist attack, and now they want to build many more?? And this is on top to the fact we have nowhere to put all the dangerous nuclear waste existing plants have already generated. This is not the change we were promised and it's time to make that abundantly clear with our phone calls and emails. Please make your toll-free calls and submit the action page above.

Tell Legislators That Nuke Power is Not Safe Alternative Energy

According to the 2/28 Des Moines Register:

Lawmakers are considering offering more incentives to expand nuclear energy in Iowa. So far, 57 representatives have signed on to a proposal to allow nuclear energy projects to apply for millions of dollars in state grant money. The bill already has passed a House subcommittee and heads to the full House Commerce Committee for consideration.

“This is, in my opinion, the right direction for the Legislature to send the signal that yes, we are interested in you guys ... making this investment, growing the work force,” said Rep. Kraig Paulsen, a Hiawatha Republican who supports the proposal.

State officials have said Iowa’s energy supply is one key reason the state landed the $600 million Google data center under construction in Council Bluffs. The state also is hoping to attract a Microsoft data center that some lawmakers have speculated could generate a $750 million investment.

Supporters of nuclear energy said such projects may not come to Iowa in the future if the state doesn’t expand its energy sources.

“One of the main attractions of Iowa is affordable and abundant power,” said Timothy Coonan, a lobbyist for the Iowa Association of Electric Cooperatives. “If we’re not thinking ahead and planning, looking sometimes 25 to 50 years in the future for energy needs, we hit a ceiling.” The Duane Arnold Energy Center in Palo is Iowa’s only nuclear plant. It produces 592 million watts of electricity a year, enough to power 600,000 homes, according to the Web site of FPL Energy, the Florida company that owns the plant.

Lawmakers said there are no immediate plans to build another nuclear power plant. However, they said Iowa should send a signal to businesses that the state is willing to expand nuclear power production.

Supporters of the bill say nuclear energy is clean and safe, despite its reputation as a societal hazard.

Some organizations disagree. A Cedar Rapids group, the “Strong Like a Willow” project, notes the ill effects of the 1986 nuclear reactor explosion of Chernobyl.

The group’s director, Hope Burwell, has said advocates of nuclear power fail to adequately consider possible consequences of a nuclear disaster, such as birth defects, heart conditions and other health issues.

Iowa's only nuclear power plant in the Duane Arnold plant in Palo came on line in 1975 and is up for relicensing on February 21, 2014 . It, like other nuclear plants, is coping with delays in opening the national waste depository at Yucca Mountain. In 2001, the Des Moines Register reported that the spent fuel pool would be full within 2 years. An interim plan was developed to accommodate future waste as the delays at Yucca Mountain continue.

As long as disposal of nuclear materials is a significant issue and the costs of clean-up so expensive ($53.8 million predicted if there were a major accident at this plant), it seems like a poor way to generate power. In addition, as a state that is so important to food production, can we really afford to risk a Chernobyl or Three Mile Island like disaster?

Why Nuke Power Won't Help Global Warming If We Have Any Sense at All

There is a great article (actually two) in the Utne Reader. The article "Atomic Dreams" points out who is behind pushing nuclear power as a "green" solution and why it is still prudent to ignore them.

The argument for nuclear power is that it has a zero-sum effect over time where CO2 production is concerned whereas coal is a contributor to global climate change. This is good if that were the end of the argument. However, there are the nagging problems of nuclear waste storage, the time and expense it takes to build and/or retrofit or replace such plants (versus the lack of time that scientists say we have to make significant change), and the fact that there exist better power solutions for people like you and me that are much more sustainable and less dangerous.

First, why the push for "green" nuclear power? The short answer is that it is one of the only ways that Big Energy can continue to make the kinds of profits that they have grown accustomed too. For example, if power companies are pushed to reduced the CO2 from traditional coal-powered plants, the cost of nuclear energy looks more reasonable and the upkeep costs are much more predictable than old king coal. With the 2005 bill that put $12 billion in the kitty to make nuclear viable from a start-up cost, Big Energy is chomping at the bit for consumers to buy the "green" aspect and have invested several million dollars into a PR campaign to get us on board.

But wait a second big fella, it will take until about 2017 or 2020 for these power plants to come on line. I thought scientists are saying that we are already at the cusp of the tipping point of no return? That is why conservationists point to wind, geothermic, hydro-electric and solar as better options. One, they are completely safe to use. Two, they don't necessarily rely on the fragile grid, but extra energy can subsidize those on it.

The story that Big Energy isn't thrilled with is that smaller cooperatives and, yes, even you can generate enough power to put a damper on the oligopoly that exists for electricity. Said differently, the big guys are using their governmental connections to push out the little guy from the power biz. How? By sitting on state electric regulatory agencies, by PR-ing, lobbying and PAC-ing their talking points home.

Specific to nuclear power, long-time foes of it like Sen. Dianne Feinstein are giving it a second look, as are current presidential candidates, Obama, Clinton, Richardson, Guiliani, McCain, Romney, and Thompson. The Nuclear Energy Institute which promotes the industry is proud to point out that nuclear is "clean air energy." Nuclear energy, again according the NIE "is America’s largest source of clean-air, carbon-free electricity, producing no greenhouse gases or air pollutants."

You see the clever folks at Nukes 'R Us have sold them on the idea that they can avert one form of global disaster for a smaller one.

Hillary Clinton is quoted as saying, "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."

Well there is another question that is not being asked is "what do we do with the nuclear power plants and radioactive waste materials that are reaching the end of their life cycles (and how do we prevent those pesky terrorists from getting their hands on it)?"

With a hundred nuclear plants online, it is conceivable to deal with them, but what if we were to add say 50 more? Currently, we are having great difficulty getting one nuclear waste site built (and the folks in Nevada are just thrilled to have it). As Mycle Schneider writes in the Utne Reader, "In reality, the nuclear industry is not even in a position to maintain the number of operating plants in the world. As we have shown in a recent report, the average age of the operating power plants is 21 years. We have assumed an average lifetime of 40 years for all operating reactors. Considering the fact that the average age of all 108 units that already have been closed is equally about 21 years, the doubling of the operational lifetime seems rather optimistic."

So as tempting as it is to say, in the short run, that nuclear technology can be the solution to the terrifying prospects of global climate change, the long-term calls for smarter (and cooler, less-invested-in-nuclear) minds to prevail. We need to move past the idea that conservation means compromise and that other technologies can be used right here and now to pull us away from the edge.

Nuclear Energy: Clinton, Obama, Edwards Views

Some reasons increasing nuclear power transmission is impractical today:

1) The US has no reprocessing plants to recycle used nuclear materials.
2) With 100 aging plants online, it is more practical to retrofit or replace them with safer plants in current sites than to build new ones.
3) Nuclear waste storage continues to meet with resistance across the US because of concerns about potential leakages.

What's All the Fusion: Energy Bill May Be Highly Reactive

HR 6 - The Energy Independence and Security Act has a lot of good things in it (e.g., increasing CAFE standards to 35 mpgs by 2020, make alternative fuels widely available, and close tax loopholes for big oil companies), but it also has language that puts the risk of developing nuclear energy plants on the backs of taxpayers to move liability away from the banks that finance them and the energy companies themselves.

One of the reasons nuclear energy is more expensive than coal-fired or natural gas-fired energy is that the cost of building nuclear power plants is much more expensive and insuring them is highly problematic.

As the information below suggests, there is a high interest in increasing nuclear power in the US (it currently accounts for 1/5 of all electricity). However, with the environmental and human concerns about plant failures and disposing of nuclear waste, we need to carefully consider the wisdom of the public being the insurers of such projects.




From the Congressional Research Service

Nearly three decades after the most recent order was placed for a new nuclear power plant in the United States, several utilities are now expressing interest in
building a total of up to 30 new reactors. The renewed interest in nuclear power has
resulted primarily from higher prices for natural gas, improved operation of existing
reactors, and uncertainty about future restrictions on coal emissions. A substantial
tax credit and other incentives for nuclear generation provided by the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) are also likely to improve the economic viability of qualifying new reactors. New nuclear plant applications can also take advantage of
amendments to the Atomic Energy Act made in the early 1990s to reduce licensing
delays.

Currently, there are 103 licensed and operable power reactors at 65 plant sites
in 31 states, generating about one-fifth of U.S. electricity. Although no new U.S.
reactors have started up since 1996, U.S. nuclear electricity generation has since
grown by more than 20%. Much of this additional output resulted from reduced
downtime, notably through shorter refueling outages. Licensed commercial reactors
generated electricity at an average of 89.8% of their total capacity in 2006, after
averaging about 75% in the mid-1990s and about 65% in the mid-1980s.

Falling operating costs have helped renew the economic viability of the nation’s
fleet of nuclear power plants. From 1989 to 1998, 12 commercial reactors were
closed before reaching the end of their 40-year licenses. By the late 1990s, there was real doubt that any reactors would make it to 40 years. Since 2000, however, 44
commercial reactors have received 20-year license extensions from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC), giving them up to 60 years of operation, and more
are pending.

The nuclear production tax credit in the Energy Policy Act could have a
significant impact on the economic viability of new nuclear power plants. Under
base case assumptions, new reactors are not competitive with either coal-fired or
natural gas-fired facilities. However, if new reactors are able to take full advantage of the nuclear production tax credit, nuclear power appears competitive with either natural gas-fired or coal-fired facilities.

Other factors will also be important in the commercial decision to invest in new
nuclear plants, such as fossil fuel prices and the regulatory environment for both
nuclear power and future fossil fuel-fired generation. If natural gas prices remain at historically high levels, future nuclear plants will be more likely to be competitive without federal tax credits. However, natural gas prices have been highly cyclical in the past, raising the possibility that nuclear costs could be undercut in the future.

Despite improvements since Chernobyl and Three Mile Island in the 70's and 80's, nuclear power is very lethal causing between 600 to 5000 deaths annually. In addition, the plants are still not safe.

March, 1997
The state-run Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation reprocessing plant at Tokaimura, Japan, contaminated at least 35 workers with minor radiation after a fire and explosion occurred.

September 1999
Another accident at the uranium processing plant at Tokaimura, Japan, plant exposed fifty-five workers to radiation. More than 300,000 people living near the plant were ordered to stay indoors. Workers had been mixing uranium with nitric acid to make nuclear fuel, but had used too much uranium and set off the accidental uncontrolled reaction.

2001
Five international accidents

August 2004
Mihama, Japan: nonradioactive steam leaked from a nuclear power plant, killing four workers and severely burning seven others.

July 2007
Kashiwazaki, Japan: radiation leaks, burst pipes, and fires at a major nuclear power plant followed a 6.8 magnitude earthquake near Niigata. Japanese officials, frustrated at the plant operators' delay in reporting the damage, closed the plant a week later until its safety could be confirmed. Further investigation revealed that the plant had unknowingly been built directly on top of an active seismic fault.

In the U.S.

May 1993
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission released a warning to the operators of 34 nuclear reactors around the country that the instruments used to measure levels of water in the reactor could give false readings during routine shutdowns and fail to detect important leaks. The problem was first bought to light by an engineer at Northeast Utilities in Connecticut who had been harassed for raising safety questions. The flawed instruments at boiling-water reactors designed by General Electric utilize pipes which were prone to being blocked by gas bubbles; a failure to detect falling water levels could have resulted, potentially leading to a meltdown.

August, 1999
The Washington Post reported that thousands of workers were unwittingly exposed to plutonium and other highly radioactive metals over a 23-year period (beginning in the mid-1950's) at the Department of Energy's Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Kentucky. Workers, told they were handling Uranium (rather than the far more toxic plutonium), inhaled radioactive dust while processing the materials as part of a government experiment to recycle used nuclear reactor fuel.

February 2000
New York's Indian Point II power plant vented a small amount of radioactive steam when a an aging steam generator ruptured. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission initially reported that no radioactive material was released, but later changed their report to say that there was a leak, but not of a sufficient amount to threaten public safety.

June, 2000
U.S. Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) led a field senate hearing regarding workers exposed to hazardous materials while working in the nation's atomic plants. At the hearing, which revealed information about potential on and off-site contamination at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio, DeWine noted, "We know that as a result of Cold War efforts, the government, yes, our federal government, allowed thousands of workers at its facilities across the country to be exposed to poisonous materials, such as beryllium dust, plutonium, and silicon, without adequate protection." Testimony also indicated that the Piketon plant altered workers' radiation dose readings and worked closely with medical professionals to fight worker's compensation claims.

July, 2000
Wildfires in the vicinity of the Hanford facility hit the highly radioactive "B/C" waste disposal trenches, raising airborne plutonium radiation levels in the nearby cities of Pasco and Richland to 1,000 above normal. Wildfires also threatened the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and the DOE's Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. In the latter case, the fires closely approached large amounts of stored radioactive waste and forced the evacuation of 1,800 workers. [See also 1986 and May 1997.]

March 2002
Workers discovered a foot-long cavity eaten into the reactor vessel head at the Davis-Besse nuclear plant in Ohio. Borated water had corroded the metal to a 3/16 inch stainless steel liner which held back over 80,000 gallons of highly pressurized radioactive water. In April 2005 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposed fining plant owner First Energy 5.4 million dollars for their failure to uncover the problem sooner (similar problems plaguing other plants were already known within the industry), and also proposed banning System Engineer Andrew Siemaszko from working in the industry for five years due to his falsifying reactor vessel logs. As of this writing the fine and suspension were under appeal.

Nuke-le Headed

Tens of Billions of Taxpayer Dollars for the Nuclear Power Industry’s Expansion: Nuclear power plants generate radioactive waste that we cannot store safely and permanently, are a target for terrorist attacks, and are very expensive and time-consuming to build. The majority of Americans oppose increasing our country’s use of nuclear power. But earlier this year, those lobbyists convinced the Senate to pass an energy bill that provided up to $50 billion in loan guarantees for the construction of new nuclear energy plants. The nuclear energy industry plans to use tens of billions of taxpayers’ money to build 28 new nuclear reactors at a cost of approximately $5 billion each. [MIT, 2007; NYT 07/31/2007]

The Nuclear Energy Industry Has an Army of Lobbyists: The energy and nuclear power lobbying force is the seventh largest in Washington with more than 17,000 registered lobbyists. Since 1998, the Nuclear Energy Institute – an industry organization – and other companies in the power industry have spent over $51 million on lobbying. Last year alone, they spent nearly $16 million on campaign contributions. [CPR, 2007]

John Edwards Will Reject Nuclear Power and Invest in Renewable Energy: Edwards opposes the construction of new nuclear power plants with taxpayer subsidies. He believes that, with a president who asks Americans to be patriotic about something other than war, we can build a New Energy Economy and achieve energy independence.

To read more about John Edwards’ plan to build the New Energy Economy, please visit http://johnedwards.com/issues/energy/.