Solve 4 Biggies
  ~  by reducing income taxes & increasing energy taxes

                          
   
New entries Wednesday &
Sunday evenings
  (& sometimes in between)

- Contribute to this online
  public conversation -





   1 - Global warming

   2 - Dependence on
        foreign energy

   3 - Trade deficit

   4 - Pollution from non-
        renewable fuels

Putting nuclear power to bed -- for many years

Print the article

This entry was posted on 7/18/2007 11:36 PM and is filed under nuclear.




The following solve4biggies.com entries and comments detail why nuclear power in the United States is a non-starter going forward.
 
    What about nuclear power? - 4/28/2007

    According to 39 Senators, "renewable" includes nuclear - 6/17/2007
 
    It's time to stop the madness (see comments) - 9/16/07

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are eight more reasons:

  1) 1999 - Fatal nuclear accident in Japan.  "Two workers died from massive radiation exposure and 600 people were exposed to smaller doses of radiation."  2003 - a Japanese court "handed out suspended prison terms to six officials of a nuclear processing plant after they were found guilty of negligence in the country's worst nuclear accident."

       This is what can happen when we try to cut butter (boil water) with a chain saw (nuclear energy).

  2) 2002 - "Japan's nuclear power industry suffered another blow.... after Tokyo Electric Power, the nation's biggest utility, said its employees falsified nuclear safety records to hide problems."

        Why falsify when you can just withhold?  (see # 4 below - U.S.)

  3) $66 billion+ in subsidies!! - Per Taxpayers for Common Sense (a self-proclaimed non-partisan budget watchdog): "There is a long tradition of providing massive subsidies for nuclear power in the U.S.   Between 1948 and 1998, more than $66 billion was spent on nuclear energy research and subsidies.  Unable to produce nuclear power at a profit by themselves, plant operators have resorted to intensively lobbying members of Congress to preserve unjustified subsidies for the normal costs of doing business. Private investors stay away from nuclear power because production of nuclear-fired electricity costs at least four times as much as other conventional energy sources. Where private investors recognize a bad deal, the federal government continues to recklessly spend taxpayer dollars."

         Given the HUGE subsidies given to the nuclear power industry why aren't waste reprocessing and long-term storage handled??   

  4) May 2007 - The nuclear industry is withholding information on significant accidents.  "....a nuclear chain-reaction accident nearly occurred 14 months ago at a nuclear fuels processing plant in Tennessee.  The incident might never have been disclosed publicly if not for laws requiring the NRC to annually report 'abnormal occurrences' of its license-holders to Congress."

  5) June 2007 - Yucca Mountain Johnny or NO Yucca Mountain Johnny?? - This shows how far we are from long-term nuclear waste storage.  How can we even be THINKING of more nuclear plants?

                         

  6) July 2007 - Japan debates safety after quake (July 17th); then, Japan quake-hit plant may be shut a year or more (July 18th).  Some excerpts:

     - "Building a reasonably quake-resistant plant is way too costly to be truly realistic," says Hiroyuki Nagasawa, a management-systems professor at Osaka Prefecture University.  "Nothing short of reevaluating our energy policy will change the current situation, but we have much bigger political powers working to keep the plants running."  The country has been spared a quake-related nuclear calamity so far.  Citizens can only hope their luck holds.

     - ....the government might order TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Co.) to keep the plant shut for more than a year while a safety study is conducted, raising questions about possible power cuts and the hefty cost to TEPCO of firing up other mothballed power stations to meet heavy summer demand.

     - TEPCO first said there had been no radiation leaks from the quake, which caused a small fire, but later revealed that 1,200 liters (317 U.S. gallons) of radioactive water had leaked into the ocean.  On Tuesday, it said there had been about 50 problems including a minor radiation leak into the atmosphere.  Then on Wednesday, the utility revised up the amount of radiation in the leaked water, but added that the amounts were still too small to harm people or the environment.

  7)  Nuclear Power Plant accidents (20 listed) and Processing, Storage, Shipping & Disposal accidents (26 listed) in the United States.

  8) The possible proliferation of nuclear material from power plants, reprocessing facilities, transportation vehicles, or storage sites.  Here's an example:  Storage of Nuclear Spent Fuel Criticized

======================================

At the federal level, let's start a phased-in shift of taxes from income to a BTU tax on non-renewable energy.  This will solve the 4 biggies while beginning the process of aligning what we pay for nuclear energy with its actual costs.

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this entry
  • No trackbacks exist for this entry.
Comments

    • 8/3/2007 10:23 AM Jim Blair wrote:
      You say:

      " - ....the government might order TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Co.) to keep the plant shut for more than a year while a safety study is conducted, raising questions about possible power cuts and the hefty cost to TEPCO of firing up other mothballed power stations to meet heavy summer demand."

      And just what fuels those "mothballed power stations" that are to be fired up? Coal? Natural gas? And how will that impact climate change?

      Sure nuclear has potential problems. So "How can we even be THINKING of more nuclear plants?"?

      Answer: Because the realistic alternatives are coal, natural gas, or petroleum. And of those, coal is what is now being built and planned in the US.

      You say nuclear is subsidized by the government? Like maybe corn ethanol or solar or wind are not? Do you think coal is now "paying its externality costs"?

      While in Canada last week I read that Alberta (and maybe some other provinces) are considering building nuclear power plants to export electricity to the USA. One energy expert there said Canada can make money selling that power because the Americans are too stupid to realize that they should be building their own nuclear plants.

      So two Japanese were killed in a nuclear accident in 1999? That proves that nuclear is unsafe. Like if a bridge were to collapse and kill some people, we should not build any more and remove the ones we have because bridges are unsafe?
      Reply to this
      1. 10/15/2007 11:26 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:

        Thanks for your comments.

            To your "And just what fuels those "mothballed power stations" that are to be fired up? Coal? Natural gas? And how will that impact climate change?"

        I'm not anti-nuclear, we just need to be able to handle nuclear waste long-term and know how much it costs to store it (and transport it - see below).  When nuclear power's full external costs are included and government subsidies are at least slowed, business people will RUN from nuclear power like they would out of a burning building.

        See comments on It's time to stop the madnessAccording to 39 Senators, renewable includes nuclear and What about nuclear power? for in depth coverage of nuclear power pros and cons.

        Info on problems with the transportation of nuclear waste from Dennis Kucinich's website:  (April 2002)
         

        "The transportation of this waste would require over 96,000 truck shipments over four decades. Almost every major east-west interstate highway and mainline railroad in the country would experience high-level waste shipments as waste is moved from reactors and other sites in 39 states.

        The Department of Energy proposes to directly impact 44 states and many of the major metropolitan areas in the nation, at least 109 cities with populations exceeding 100,000. Highway shipments alone will impact at least 703 counties with a combined population of 123 million people. Nationally, 11 million people reside within one- half mile of a truck or rail route.

        This never-before-attempted radioactive materials transportation effort would bring with it a constellation of hazards and risks, including potentially serious economic damage and property value losses in cities and communities along shipping routes. A major concern will be the increased security risk since these shipments represent, in effect, nuclear mobile targets which will travel through some of our most populous and vulnerable metropolitan areas. This committee must understand that high-level nuclear waste will remain deadly for a million years.

        If sending nuclear waste down our roads and rails with limited safeguards doesn't bother you, then maybe placing this deadly waste on barges in our rivers, lakes, and oceans will. Due to a lack of rail facilities near several reactors, the Department of Energy will use barge shipments to move this waste to a port capable of transferring the 120-ton cask to a train.

        Some of these shipments will traverse the Great Lakes; the world's largest source of fresh water. Over 35 million people living in the Great Lakes basin get their drinking water from the Great Lakes, and I venture to guess they will not appreciate the fact that nuclear waste is being shipped across their drinking water. I cannot support any plan that even contemplates shipping highly radioactive waste in the Great Lakes."


        Reply to this
    Leave a comment

    Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.

     Enter the above security code (required)

     Name

     Email (will not be published)

     Website

    Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.