Home
Energy Net's Library tagged → View Popular
Nearly dead and buried - Las Vegas Sun
Energy Department still needs to abandon license application
Nevada has been fighting for more than 20 years efforts by the federal government to build a dump for the nation’s high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, a mere 90 miles northwest of the heavily populated Las Vegas Valley. Despite the clout of the nuclear power industry, things have begun to go Nevada’s way. Thanks to the efforts of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and the actions of the Obama administration, funding for the ill-conceived project is drying up.
The only major hurdle that remains is to have the Energy Department withdraw its license application before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build a permanent Yucca dump. It is only after that application is abandoned for good that Nevadans can truly rejoice.
New Times SLO | If Diablo melts down
Most of the residents of SLO County have received information about obtaining K1 tablets in case radiation is released from the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. We can all get two tablets per household member; keep them safe, know where they are. So far, so good: But please tell me, how are all the kids at school supposed to get the tablets in case of such a horrible emergency?
The tablets are supposed to be taken in “an appropriate and timely dosage.” What exactly is “timely”? There is no guarantee kids will be at home during such an emergency.
School kids might not take pills to school with them. If they need medication while at school, it is given to the school nurse for safe-
keeping. However, most schools no longer have school nurses on campus. Who would deal with this?
Will parents be able to leave K1 tablets clearly marked for their kids with somebody? Has any thought been given to this? The K1
tablets do not provide protection other than for the thyroid gland, but in children, I must assume that this is protection worthwhile
—while we scramble to get out of harm’s way!
The Diamondback - Nuclear energy: Don't believe the sticker price
A common perception of nuclear power is that it’s an affordable, carbon-free energy source that could meet a lot of America’s demand for electricity, if only those darn environmentalists would get out of the way. Unfortunately for nuclear power advocates and Maryland ratepayers, this statement crumbles upon contact with reality.
The average cost of electricity for all of Maryland’s sectors is 13.45 cents per kilowatt-hour. There’s a growing possibility some of us will have the pleasure of paying double that thanks to the pending merger between Constellation Energy and French electric giant EDF Energy, which is supposed to pave the way for construction of a new nuclear power plant at Calvert Cliffs. Doubling rates is fairly easy to predict with a trip down memory lane.
Tooele Transcript Bulletin - Foreign nuclear waste has no place in America
The hazardous waste industry, and nuclear waste in particular, have never been simple issues within Tooele County. While some along the Wasatch Front would like to see this genie put back into the bottle, most local residents have long realized our hazardous waste corridor is here to stay — requiring us to take a more pragmatic and nuanced view of the industry.
Hazardous waste has created jobs for county residents. It has also contributed millions of dollars to county government coffers in the form of mitigation fees — funds that were used to construct Deseret Peak Complex. Although that contribution has declined drastically in recent years, it remains an important revenue source within county budgets.
A shortsighted vision - - Las Vegas Sun
Recruiting a nuclear power plant is on the mind of eastern Nevada mayor
The mayor of Ely in eastern Nevada foresees a day when the mines that give employment to residents of his small city begin petering out. So a goal of starting now on a plan to diversify Ely’s economy would be understandable.
What is not understandable, however, is the direction he has taken to achieve this goal. In a state that has vigorously fought for more than 25 years against a federal plan to locate a dump for nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, just 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, and in a state that suffers from a scarcity of water, Mayor Jon Hickman is advocating for a nuclear power plant.
Nuclear power not the answer; renewable energy is
Earlier this month, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission held a hearing in Dana Point regarding the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, commonly known as SONGS.
At the hearing, Southern California Edison claimed it is doing everything necessary to fix the “culture of cover-up” that exists – ahem, pardon me – existed at the plant.
But in reality, firing about 70 percent of the staff did not fix it, and nor has anything else.
Not only does that culture of cover-up still exist, but actually, it is a necessary component of the operation in the eyes of everyone who works there. Because they’ll get in trouble if the media or the public find out what leaks, what cracks, what drops, what bursts, what spills, who gets contaminated, or by how much. Especially when it’s you getting contaminated — they don’t want to tell you that. Nor do the so-called “regulators.”
The Free Press, Mankato, MN - Your View: Nuclear benefits overstated
Regarding the guest editorial “Time to reconsider nuclear power” published Monday, there are numerous aspects to nuclear power that the author fails to mention.
Most importantly, when the Pioneer of Bemidji states that nuclear power is a clean energy source, that “today’s technological advances can produce safe, efficient power plants,” they are seriously mistaken. While coal burning is mentioned as a possibility for a continued and extensive source of energy, the level of carbon produced makes it seem like not a viable option. However, it is discovered that nuclear energy is not a very green choice, either.
Green energy plan should be alternative to nuclear
CPS Energy has made two critical errors in their dealings on the South Texas Project (STP) nuclear plant: assuming that nuclear energy will be cheap and that the cost of alternatives is too high.
This month, just two days before the San Antonio City Council was to vote to approve $400 million in bonds to move forward with the STP expansion, CPS announced that the cost estimate for the project had risen as much as $4 billion. That brought the cost of expanding the nuclear power plant to $17 billion — a $12 billion increase from NRG Energy's original estimate just last year of $5.4 billion.
Cheaper and safer ways exist to meet the city's need for power. With the bond vote now pushed back until January, the City Council should take the time to get bids on alternative energy scenarios for San Antonio's new electric generation. This input would present the council with the most cost-effective, least risky, most environmentally sustainable plan possible.
Who wants a nuclear power station next door? – Telegraph Blogs
Greg Clark is a thoughtful chap: the sort of chap who contemplates his subject from all angles before pronouncing. If he reckons we need more nuclear power stations, that’s good enough for me. Greg is also a sound localist – one of the original supporters of Direct Democracy - and he wants local communities to be consulted about the siting of any new facilities.
How can these two things be reconciled? How can we build more nuclear power stations quickly while respecting local autonomy? Here’s an idea: why not let the market decide? Some US states have come up with an intriguing way of settling where to build unpopular installations, from incinerators to mobile phone masts. They ask each county what it would take to make them want the facility. Each county then submits a sealed bid, and the one with the lowest price is chosen. How the county authorities use the money is up to them: they can spend it, cut taxes or both.
LETTER: What will U.S. do about depleted uranium? - Medford, MA - Medford Transcript
The UN Day for the Prevention of the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict is Nov. 6 and is the International Day of Action in the campaign to ban depleted uranium (DU) weapons which are anti-tank shells.
However, the impact of a fired shell with a tank puts a cloud of radioactive and chemically toxic DU oxide particles in the air that can be inhaled or ingested. As its half-life — DU is radioactive — is over 4 million years — once in the environment, it is here to stay.
DU anti-tank shells have been used by the U.S. and the U.K. since 1991. During the First Gulf War in 1991, 320 tons of DU was dumped on Iraq, Kuwait and a little on Saudi Arabia. They have been used in the Balkans Wars of the 1990s and also in Iraq in 2003 where they were used in urban areas.
Reports from Iraq indicate increased rates of cancer, especially in children, and increased rates of birth defects that may be due to DU exposure. DU has been found to cause mutations in humans and laboratory animals and cancers including leukemia in laboratory rodents.
Guest column: Nuclear power is a false solution to climate change | greenbaypressgazette.com | Green Bay Press-Gazette
he argument that nuclear power can contribute to reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions that cause global climate change ("Ban on new nuclear power plants should be lifted" Oct. 16, Green Bay Press-Gazette) is flawed for three main reasons.
First, nuclear power is not carbon-free electricity. At each stage of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining, milling, enrichment to construction, decommissioning and waste storage, nuclear power uses fossil fuels and contributes greenhouse gas emissions that accelerate global climate change. Compared to renewable energy, nuclear power releases four to five times the CO2 per unit of energy produced.
A recent study of solutions to global warming by Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson of Stanford University concluded that over its entire lifecycle, nuclear electricity emits between 68 and 180 grams of CO2-equivalent emissions per kilowatt hour, compared to 3 to 11 grams for wind and concentrated solar.
WWW.WPCVA.COM: Uranium dust a problem
Over the last 2 1/2 years I have been talking about the dust problem that would accompany the opening of an open-pit uranium mine in Pittsylvania County.
I have spoken about the low-level radioactive dust that would come with the blasting and the tailing piles.
(Low-level radiation accumulates in the body).
I have spoken to the supervisors probably a dozen times, with absolutely no results.
Phil Lovelace has spoken more often than I have about leakage of radioactive water from the holding ponds.
He also has received dumb looks from the supervisors.
*
In fact, one of them sometimes looks as if he is asleep.
In my opinion five of the supervisors have paid so little attention that it appears they work with Virginia Uranium.
Boxer-Kerry Cap-and-Trade Bill's Nuclear Provision Won't Fuel a Nuclear Revival
Abstract: America needs a clean, safe, and sustainable energy source. Nuclear power could be part of the solution -- with the right set of free-market reforms. Congress, the nuclear industry, and many Americans agree that reform of U.S. nuclear policies is necessary, but cannot agree on what those reforms should look like. The nuclear provision in the Senate's new Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act is a nice nod to nuclear power, but leaves the waters muddied. Heritage Foundation energy experts Jack Spencer and Nicolas Loris provide some clarity.
Postbulletin.com: It's about more than money from nuclear power plant
Yes, Red Wing is very concerned about funding for public safety; however there are other issues that weigh on city leaders.
Most important is the permanence of high-level nuclear waste at the Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plant. The city should be involved in this process. For anyone to suggest that the city is throwing money away, simply does not understand the ramifications.
The city continues to be informed and create opportunities to share concerns on behalf of area residents. Everyone should read the state administrative law judge's conclusions in his submission to the PUC. The judge found that the majority of Red Wing's requests were reasonable.
SentinelSource.com | READER OPINION: It’s time to close up Vermont Yankee, by Bill Pearson
We all know that Entergy Vermont Yankee prides itself on its safe, clean, reliable, and 24/7 production of power.
But there’s no fine print on those full-page color newspaper ads advising us that some 200 toxic radionuclides are also produced, not all of them safely, cleanly or reliably prevented from contaminating the Vermont, New Hampshire or Massachusetts countryside.
Vermont Yankee also produces Plutonium 239, a carcinogen, teratogen, and mutagen; more than enough every month (2.13 pounds) to provide a lethal dose for every human being on the planet.
In 37 years of operation, Vermont Yankee has produced enough Plutonium 239 to kill everyone on Earth hundreds of times.
Also, as competent proliferators certainly know, civilian reactor-grade plutonium can be used to make nuclear weapons.
Government's claims on energy 'should be taken with a pinch of salt' - Telegraph
Government claims that there is "no danger of power cuts in the next decade" should be taken ''with a pinch of salt'', according to campaigners.
The warning was issued by the expert group, Supporters of Nuclear Energy (SONE) which accused politicians of formulating policy in a vacuum of ignorance.
Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, was quoted in SONE's monthly bulletin as saying: ''There is no danger of power cuts in the next decade. Power stations are closing but we already have ten gigawatts (10,000MW) of new power stations being built and another ten gigawatts that have planning consent.''
Letters: Dangers of exporting nuclear technology | From the Guardian | The Guardian
Dangers of exporting nuclear technology
Your revelations about Iraq's modern-day atomic aspirations (Iraq seeks permission for new nuclear programme, 28 October) raise the question whether the UK nuclear industry – with encouragement of the government, now all reborn atomic aficionados – will seek to gain a foothold in the re-emerging Iraqi nuclear industry.
The UK has form on this: on 31 March 1957 the Baghdad Pact Nuclear Centre opened, with full British support. This pact was created in 1955 by Britain, Turkey, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq with the primary aim of strengthening regional security. A year later, on 29 March 1958, the centre was honoured by a lecture from Sir John Cockcroft, director of the UK's Atomic Energy Research Establishment.
The Energy Daily: New Nuclear Is Not Cost-Competitive
Judging from its recent actions, the nuclear industry has given up on the pretense that the technology is cost competitive with presently or soon-to-be available alternatives, whether or not climate change legislation is enacted.
Recognizing that capital markets will not support the construction of new reactors, nuclear industry lobbyists at the federal and state legislatures have launched a full court press to get loans from taxpayers (in the form of federal loan guarantees) and ratepayers (through construction work in progress, or CWIP) to fund these projects. The same factors that have led Wall Street to refuse to finance reactors and to lower the ratings of utilities that are trying to build them are the very reasons that taxpayers and ratepayers should not be forced to foot the bill for new nuclear reactors. Loan guarantees and CWIP force taxpayers and ratepayers to bear the marketplace, execution, policy, technology and financial risks that capital markets will not.
Public Citizen - As Thursday Vote Looms on Two New Reactors, Popular Opposition May Make Selling Nuclear Power More Difficult
As a Thursday vote on two new nuclear reactors looms, cities around the state that purchase power from San Antonio’s municipal utility, City Public Services (CPS), are balking at the prospect of buying pricey nuclear power from the reactors.
Three problems exist with the planned expansion at the South Texas Nuclear Project (STP) facility. First, nuclear power creates dangerous radioactive waste that no one has figured out how to dispose of safely.
Second, nuclear power is expensive – the nuclear industry requires taxpayer subsidies to prop it up. Third, no one knows for certain just how much the construction of the two reactors will cost ratepayers.
Response: New nuclear energy will not need a taxpayers' subsidy | Comment is free | The Guardian
Your leader column claims that the "nuclear renaissance" does not make sense on financial grounds (Nuclear power: A bung by any other name, 19 October). However, there is a growing collation of support among the public, politicians of the main parties, industry, scientists and regulators, who recognise nuclear is needed as part of the answer to keep the lights on and tackle climate change.
Selected Tags
Related Tags
Sponsored Links
Groups interested in nuke.com...
-
Nukular Commentary
The nuclear debate from bot...
Items: 6 | Visits: 50
Created by: Energy Net
Highlighter, Sticky notes, Tagging, Groups and Network: integrated suite dramatically boosting research productivity. Learn more »
Join Diigo