vinayak vaish
8 November 2009
Dr.S.P.Udaykumar is an anti-nuclear activist from Tamil Nadu. He is the coordinator of National Alliance For Anti-Nuclear Movements(NAAM) which enjoys the support of organizations like Human Rights Forum (HRF), National Alliance For People’s Movement (NAPM) and Khasi Student’s Union (KSU).
Question (Vinayak): What is NAAM? What are the objectives of your organization?
Answer (Dr. S.P.Udaykumar): NAAM is a platform where all the organizations fighting for a nuclear free India come together. We try to eradicate the nuclear threats that could haunt our children and grandchildren and successive generations. We struggle not to sell India and Indians to foreigners in the name of deals, development, globalization and energy security.,
Question: What inspired you to join this movement? How did you become a part of it?
Answer: Three of my grandparents died of cancer, I have seen the ill-effects of uranium mining from my very own eyes, I do not want my children to die like this. For a matter of fact I myself do not want to die like this. That is the fire which drives me to fight tirelessly. This is inhumane and I don’t want anybody to witness such a death or even worse live in such an environment which paves way for a slow and painful end to human life.
Question: What has been the government’s response to your protests?
Answer: The government has been evasive. It has never paid much heed to our demands. The shameful thing is that the government is exploiting its own people’s illiteracy to serve its monetary interests all in the name of energy security, paying no attention to the health security of itss citizens. It is sad and it hurts.
Question: Everyone is brooding about how great a solution nuke actually is, why do you differ?
Answer: Do you know the waste produced emits radioactive waves which fail to die even after 24,000 years of their onset. They continue to harm us and can have far reaching consequences resulting in cancer and diseases which can become congenital thereby not just harming you as an individual but also generations which you are going to bring in this world. What is the use of such a solution which is not safe?
Question: What do you suggest then if not nuke, what are the options available to us to meet our growing energy needs?
Answer: Renewable and Green technology is capable enough to satisfy human needs and as Gandhi ji said” Nothing can satisfy a man’ greed” be it nuke, thermal, anything. Solar energy has great potential in India. It can cater the needs of the entire country including the northern sates like Punjab, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh and states of north east India. Wind mills can be installed in states like Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and other places where wind flows at a speed greater than 15km/hr. Tidal and hydro power have got great potential too, options are infinite to be harnessed but only when the government is willing to do the same.
Click Title or Link to whole post:
http://www.whatswiththeclimate.org/2009/11/08/i-dont-want-to-die-like-thisnaam-coordinator-dr-s-p-udaykumar/
Showing posts with label Nuclear Power. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nuclear Power. Show all posts
Monday, November 9, 2009
In Search of Energy, A Virginia Town Ponders a Third Nuclear Plant
Comment: Did anyone notice this sentence: "Dominion over the company's plans for disposing of "low-level waste" like workers' clothing that contains smaller amounts of radiation"?. No to Nuke Plants!
By Kent Garber
Posted October 28, 2008
MINERAL, VA.—The area around Lake Anna is pastoral, but it has never been a typical resort community. After all, the lake was built to help cool two commercial nuclear reactors. Residents who live along the lake blithely talk about its "hot side" and "cold side," depending on proximity to the power plant, while nearby, the owners of the award-winning Lake Anna Winery joke affectionately about their wine "glowing after dark."
For a community that's lived for the past 30 years with reactors in its midst, getting a third one might not seem like a big deal. That's what Dominion, the utility company that operates the existing two units, is hoping as it lays plans to build another one here. At the moment, Dominion is one of the leading applicants in a growing wave of companies hoping to revive America's long-stalled nuclear industry.
If Dominion's proposed Virginia plant clears the remaining state and federal regulatory hurdles, it could become the first nuclear plant approved for construction in three decades in the United States. Dominion has even picked out the spot—a large plot situated between the two reactors on one side and transmission lines on the other.
The only thing that's gone in the ground so far, however, is a set of sticks: wooden stakes marking an intention. With today's high energy prices—and mounting concern about climate change—there are plenty of reasons why nuclear power seems poised for a comeback.
And yet, as Eugene Grechek, Dominion's vice president of nuclear development, said on a recent afternoon as he stood looking across the site, "There's no guarantee that this reactor will get built." The earliest that official approval could come is 2011, which means the plant couldn't start operating until 2016 at the earliest.
Getting one reactor approved and built will be challenge enough—even with recent federal efforts to streamline regulatory approval and the support that exists in this small pocket of central northern Virginia. If most people see nuclear power as a prominent national issue, it remains, at its core, an intensely local one.
Aside from the area right around the lake, Louisa County is relatively poor and rural. Rush-hour traffic is six or seven cars at a stop sign. Tractors putter down the road regularly, and agriculture—corn and hay farming, mainly—is still the main occupation.
Hot water. Some lake residents, though, are understandably more worried. Lake Anna is unusually small as a source of water to cool a single nuclear reactor, let alone three. Most nuclear plants are built along rivers or oceans where the water is constantly flowing, pushing the discharge from the plant downstream. Lakes, however, are more slow moving, so, in Lake Anna's case, the hot water that comes out of the plant ends up staying around for a while.
This has created two problems. On the lake's warm side, which receives the plant's discharge, the summer water temperature already can reach above 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Even in the cooler months, in February and March, the water stays warm. Boaters bundled up in heavy jackets and caps often see people playing in the water in swimsuits. The second problem is the water level. Between the region's ongoing drought and the reactors' thirst for water, lake levels in some recent summers have fallen several feet, in some places exposing stumps or rocks that endanger boats.
A third reactor would strain the lake further, which has become a sore point between Dominion and lake residents. A 2003 Dominion report suggested that water temperatures near the reactor might rise as high as 113 degrees in the summer with three reactors operating. "That shocked a lot of people," says Doug Smith, a retired government worker who owns a farm in Louisa County and a boathouse on Lake Anna. In response, Dominion spent several months designing an alternative system to release water into the air rather than back into the lake. It's still working to address water-level issues.
Such delays are costly, and cost is one of the main reasons the nuclear industry has struggled—and continues to struggle—in the United States. Industry insiders estimate that it will cost $6 billion to build the third reactor, assuming everything goes according to plan.
Some of the other major flash points about nuclear energy that tend to dominate the political debate—where to store nuclear waste, how to safeguard power plants from terrorist attacks—have figured less prominently here, although they're not entirely absent. Like most companies, Dominion stores its spent nuclear fuel on-site, in off-white-colored casks in a secured area. The casks don't take up much space, but they do cause consternation, especially among environmentalists. "Dominion has gotten its way here for more than five decades now," says Lou Zeller, president of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense league, a regional antinuclear organization.
Zeller's group is currently involved in a separate legal dispute with Dominion over the company's plans for disposing of "low-level waste" like workers' clothing that contains smaller amounts of radiation. Dominion used to send that material to a storage location in South Carolina, but that site, as of this past summer, no longer accepts it. So Dominion will most likely have to store that on-site, too.
Though concerns about nuclear waste were raised last spring at a public hearing at Louisa County High School, many residents who attended say such objections came primarily from outsiders—"people from Washington and Charlottesville with agendas to push," says Bill Murphey, a lakeside resident. They do, however, expect their community to experience other impacts. They say they'll need more schools, roads, and homes to accommodate workers and their families during the lengthy construction process.
Click Title or Link to whole post:
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/10/28/in-search-of-energy-a-virginia-town-ponders-a-third-nuclear-plant.html?PageNr=2
By Kent Garber
Posted October 28, 2008
MINERAL, VA.—The area around Lake Anna is pastoral, but it has never been a typical resort community. After all, the lake was built to help cool two commercial nuclear reactors. Residents who live along the lake blithely talk about its "hot side" and "cold side," depending on proximity to the power plant, while nearby, the owners of the award-winning Lake Anna Winery joke affectionately about their wine "glowing after dark."
For a community that's lived for the past 30 years with reactors in its midst, getting a third one might not seem like a big deal. That's what Dominion, the utility company that operates the existing two units, is hoping as it lays plans to build another one here. At the moment, Dominion is one of the leading applicants in a growing wave of companies hoping to revive America's long-stalled nuclear industry.
If Dominion's proposed Virginia plant clears the remaining state and federal regulatory hurdles, it could become the first nuclear plant approved for construction in three decades in the United States. Dominion has even picked out the spot—a large plot situated between the two reactors on one side and transmission lines on the other.
The only thing that's gone in the ground so far, however, is a set of sticks: wooden stakes marking an intention. With today's high energy prices—and mounting concern about climate change—there are plenty of reasons why nuclear power seems poised for a comeback.
And yet, as Eugene Grechek, Dominion's vice president of nuclear development, said on a recent afternoon as he stood looking across the site, "There's no guarantee that this reactor will get built." The earliest that official approval could come is 2011, which means the plant couldn't start operating until 2016 at the earliest.
Getting one reactor approved and built will be challenge enough—even with recent federal efforts to streamline regulatory approval and the support that exists in this small pocket of central northern Virginia. If most people see nuclear power as a prominent national issue, it remains, at its core, an intensely local one.
Aside from the area right around the lake, Louisa County is relatively poor and rural. Rush-hour traffic is six or seven cars at a stop sign. Tractors putter down the road regularly, and agriculture—corn and hay farming, mainly—is still the main occupation.
Hot water. Some lake residents, though, are understandably more worried. Lake Anna is unusually small as a source of water to cool a single nuclear reactor, let alone three. Most nuclear plants are built along rivers or oceans where the water is constantly flowing, pushing the discharge from the plant downstream. Lakes, however, are more slow moving, so, in Lake Anna's case, the hot water that comes out of the plant ends up staying around for a while.
This has created two problems. On the lake's warm side, which receives the plant's discharge, the summer water temperature already can reach above 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Even in the cooler months, in February and March, the water stays warm. Boaters bundled up in heavy jackets and caps often see people playing in the water in swimsuits. The second problem is the water level. Between the region's ongoing drought and the reactors' thirst for water, lake levels in some recent summers have fallen several feet, in some places exposing stumps or rocks that endanger boats.
A third reactor would strain the lake further, which has become a sore point between Dominion and lake residents. A 2003 Dominion report suggested that water temperatures near the reactor might rise as high as 113 degrees in the summer with three reactors operating. "That shocked a lot of people," says Doug Smith, a retired government worker who owns a farm in Louisa County and a boathouse on Lake Anna. In response, Dominion spent several months designing an alternative system to release water into the air rather than back into the lake. It's still working to address water-level issues.
Such delays are costly, and cost is one of the main reasons the nuclear industry has struggled—and continues to struggle—in the United States. Industry insiders estimate that it will cost $6 billion to build the third reactor, assuming everything goes according to plan.
Some of the other major flash points about nuclear energy that tend to dominate the political debate—where to store nuclear waste, how to safeguard power plants from terrorist attacks—have figured less prominently here, although they're not entirely absent. Like most companies, Dominion stores its spent nuclear fuel on-site, in off-white-colored casks in a secured area. The casks don't take up much space, but they do cause consternation, especially among environmentalists. "Dominion has gotten its way here for more than five decades now," says Lou Zeller, president of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense league, a regional antinuclear organization.
Zeller's group is currently involved in a separate legal dispute with Dominion over the company's plans for disposing of "low-level waste" like workers' clothing that contains smaller amounts of radiation. Dominion used to send that material to a storage location in South Carolina, but that site, as of this past summer, no longer accepts it. So Dominion will most likely have to store that on-site, too.
Though concerns about nuclear waste were raised last spring at a public hearing at Louisa County High School, many residents who attended say such objections came primarily from outsiders—"people from Washington and Charlottesville with agendas to push," says Bill Murphey, a lakeside resident. They do, however, expect their community to experience other impacts. They say they'll need more schools, roads, and homes to accommodate workers and their families during the lengthy construction process.
Click Title or Link to whole post:
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/10/28/in-search-of-energy-a-virginia-town-ponders-a-third-nuclear-plant.html?PageNr=2
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Nuclear plant to boost its output LAKE ANNA NUCLEAR SITE (Virginia)
North Anna reactors get NRC permission to produce more power
Date published: 10/24/2009
By RUSTY DENNEN
North Anna Power Station's two nuclear reactors will be generating more power by next summer.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission this week approved Dominion power's application to increase the reactors' output by a total of 23 megawatts.
Unit 1's generating capacity will rise by 18 megawatts to 980; Unit 2, by 8 megawatts, to 973, according to the NRC.
The process is good for Dominion because it can increase its electricity output without having to build an expensive new generating plant elsewhere.
Scott Burnell, a spokesman for the NRC, said yesterday that the uprates involve adjustments that increase the amount of heat produced in the reactor core. Additional heat produces more steam, which turns turbines faster, putting more electricity on the power grid.
North Anna will boost power primarily through more accurate means of measuring feed water to the reactors. The change should be completed by July.
"The industry has been able to prove to us that they have methods that can increase the output of the core and still maintain safety," Burnell said.
Including North Anna, there have been 129 uprates approved by the NRC. Another seven applications are pending.
Located on Lake Anna near Mineral, North Anna's two Westinghouse pressurized water reactors came online in 1978 and 1980, respectively.
Meanwhile, Dominion has an application pending with the NRC to add a third reactor at the plant.
Rusty Dennen: 540/374-5431
Email: rdennen@freelancestar.com
Read article at:
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2009/102009/10242009/502809?rss=local
Date published: 10/24/2009
By RUSTY DENNEN
North Anna Power Station's two nuclear reactors will be generating more power by next summer.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission this week approved Dominion power's application to increase the reactors' output by a total of 23 megawatts.
Unit 1's generating capacity will rise by 18 megawatts to 980; Unit 2, by 8 megawatts, to 973, according to the NRC.
The process is good for Dominion because it can increase its electricity output without having to build an expensive new generating plant elsewhere.
Scott Burnell, a spokesman for the NRC, said yesterday that the uprates involve adjustments that increase the amount of heat produced in the reactor core. Additional heat produces more steam, which turns turbines faster, putting more electricity on the power grid.
North Anna will boost power primarily through more accurate means of measuring feed water to the reactors. The change should be completed by July.
"The industry has been able to prove to us that they have methods that can increase the output of the core and still maintain safety," Burnell said.
Including North Anna, there have been 129 uprates approved by the NRC. Another seven applications are pending.
Located on Lake Anna near Mineral, North Anna's two Westinghouse pressurized water reactors came online in 1978 and 1980, respectively.
Meanwhile, Dominion has an application pending with the NRC to add a third reactor at the plant.
Rusty Dennen: 540/374-5431
Email: rdennen@freelancestar.com
Read article at:
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2009/102009/10242009/502809?rss=local
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Stop the Senate from Giving Nuclear Power a Blank Check
Comment: Please sign the petition below, the taxpayers do not want to pay for NUKE POWER and we do not want nuke plants!
Unless we speak out, the Senate is planning to funnel billions of dollars to the nuclear power industry through a so-called “clean energy bank.”
This plan would in effect write a blank check—using taxpayers’ money—to provide unlimited loans for nuclear reactors at the expense of investments in clean, affordable renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. Setting aside the safety and security risks associated with nuclear power, taxpayers should not be on the hook for hundreds of billions in loans to an industry with such a poor financial track record. Tell your senators taxpayer dollars should be spent on truly clean, affordable energy projects.
Please make your letter personal by adding in your own thoughts and concerns. Every letter makes a difference, but customized letters have the greatest effect!
Comment: Please cut the following link and paste into your web browser:
https://secure3.convio.net/ucs/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=2184&autologin=true&JServSessionIdr002=uz5v16l716.app303a
More info listed below:
The Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA)
S. 1462
Download: Nuclear Power and the Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA)
The American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009 (S.1462), which passed out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on June 17, creates a new federal entity called the Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA). This new agency would promote the domestic development and deployment of clean energy technologies by establishing a revolving fund that will underwrite loans to provide affordable financing for a range of clean energy-related technologies. As presently drafted by the Senate, the fund's proposed structure raises a number of serious concerns that must be addressed before Congress moves forward. To ensure that energy technologies that have the greatest impact on reducing global warming pollution, are the most cost-effective, and put people back to work the fastest will receive priority for financial assistance under CEDA, the following provisions must be changed:
*unlimited loan guarantees to costly technologies without being subject to the appropriations process
*the lack of restrictions on the amount of financial support that can go to the most costly, most risky, and
*least sustainable energy technologies
*the lack of any metric for global warming pollution, which is needed to ensure that the most cost-effective, environmentally sound technologies are pursued first
All of these concerns would put the U.S. taxpayer at excessive risk and could adversely impact the competitiveness of truly renewable resources.
Unlimited Loan Guarantees
The lack of effective limits on the amount of loan guarantees that can given to eligible technologies is most significant as it eliminates a critical tool of government oversight and leave the taxpayer on the hook for billions of dollars in risky loans. The Senate plan does this by exempting CEDA from the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). This would allow CEDA to use the full faith and credit of the U.S. government to issue unlimited loan guarantees without going through the normal checks and balances of the appropriations process. Given the costly nature of many of the technologies eligible for CEDA loan guarantees, as well as their limited or poor credit history, it would be fiscally irresponsible for Congress to exempt the proposed CEDA from FCRA and allow potentially unlimited loan guarantees to be issued at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer.
No Restrictions on Funding Amount or Project Type
Although the Senate bill would require that the “cost of the loan” or the estimated cost to tax payers including risk of default be paid up front in order to get a loan guarantee, there is no certainty that the risk exposure to the taxpayer will be accurately calculated and reflected in the subsidy cost because the process for making that determination is not transparent and is poorly understood. Both the Government Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office have concluded that calculating these costs is extremely difficult[1] making the potential taxpayer exposure astronomical. Moreover, the Senate bill would allow a combination of both the borrower and the taxpayers to pay any subsidy cost, meaning that U.S. taxpayers could have even more to lose if and when projects default.
It is also problematic that the Senate bill contains no requirements ensuring the diversity of projects that could receive these taxpayer-backed loan guarantees. Eligible projects include non-renewable technologies like coal-to-liquids, coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS), and nuclear power. These technologies are all extremely costly, which could enable them to get the majority of available credit support under the program. The lack of a limit on the amount of financial assistance that could be provided to any one technology in the Senate bill would increase the likelihood that the CEDA project portfolio will be disproportionately weighted in favor of costly, non-renewable energy technologies at the expense of less expensive, cleaner and more scalable technologies.
No Global Warming Pollution Metric
Finally, the Senate bill also lacks a metric for global warming pollution, which would ensure that the fund achieves the greatest emissions reductions per dollar invested. With access to potentially unlimited loan guarantees and no cost-effective emissions reduction metric, increased electricity demand could be filled by non-renewable, costly sources of energy, further eroding the competitive position of renewable resources.
Any congressionally authorized "clean energy bank" must comply with FCRA and be subject to the congressional oversight process so that the taxpayer is not exposed to extreme financial risk. The Senate's American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009 lacks this crucial protection as well as a cap for individual technologies. CEDA must have a limit on the amount of financial assistance that can go to any one technology so that a small number of large, costly projects like nuclear power and CCS do not crowd out assistance for renewable and energy efficiency technologies. Finally, CEDA must contain a metric for global warming pollution to determine project funding priorities based on the amount of heat-trapping emissions reduced per dollar invested in the shortest amount of time.
[1] GAO report at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07339r.pdf, CBO report at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/82xx/doc8206/s1321.pdf
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/solutions/clean-energy-deployment-admin.html
Unless we speak out, the Senate is planning to funnel billions of dollars to the nuclear power industry through a so-called “clean energy bank.”
This plan would in effect write a blank check—using taxpayers’ money—to provide unlimited loans for nuclear reactors at the expense of investments in clean, affordable renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. Setting aside the safety and security risks associated with nuclear power, taxpayers should not be on the hook for hundreds of billions in loans to an industry with such a poor financial track record. Tell your senators taxpayer dollars should be spent on truly clean, affordable energy projects.
Please make your letter personal by adding in your own thoughts and concerns. Every letter makes a difference, but customized letters have the greatest effect!
Comment: Please cut the following link and paste into your web browser:
https://secure3.convio.net/ucs/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=2184&autologin=true&JServSessionIdr002=uz5v16l716.app303a
More info listed below:
The Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA)
S. 1462
Download: Nuclear Power and the Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA)
The American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009 (S.1462), which passed out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on June 17, creates a new federal entity called the Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA). This new agency would promote the domestic development and deployment of clean energy technologies by establishing a revolving fund that will underwrite loans to provide affordable financing for a range of clean energy-related technologies. As presently drafted by the Senate, the fund's proposed structure raises a number of serious concerns that must be addressed before Congress moves forward. To ensure that energy technologies that have the greatest impact on reducing global warming pollution, are the most cost-effective, and put people back to work the fastest will receive priority for financial assistance under CEDA, the following provisions must be changed:
*unlimited loan guarantees to costly technologies without being subject to the appropriations process
*the lack of restrictions on the amount of financial support that can go to the most costly, most risky, and
*least sustainable energy technologies
*the lack of any metric for global warming pollution, which is needed to ensure that the most cost-effective, environmentally sound technologies are pursued first
All of these concerns would put the U.S. taxpayer at excessive risk and could adversely impact the competitiveness of truly renewable resources.
Unlimited Loan Guarantees
The lack of effective limits on the amount of loan guarantees that can given to eligible technologies is most significant as it eliminates a critical tool of government oversight and leave the taxpayer on the hook for billions of dollars in risky loans. The Senate plan does this by exempting CEDA from the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). This would allow CEDA to use the full faith and credit of the U.S. government to issue unlimited loan guarantees without going through the normal checks and balances of the appropriations process. Given the costly nature of many of the technologies eligible for CEDA loan guarantees, as well as their limited or poor credit history, it would be fiscally irresponsible for Congress to exempt the proposed CEDA from FCRA and allow potentially unlimited loan guarantees to be issued at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer.
No Restrictions on Funding Amount or Project Type
Although the Senate bill would require that the “cost of the loan” or the estimated cost to tax payers including risk of default be paid up front in order to get a loan guarantee, there is no certainty that the risk exposure to the taxpayer will be accurately calculated and reflected in the subsidy cost because the process for making that determination is not transparent and is poorly understood. Both the Government Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office have concluded that calculating these costs is extremely difficult[1] making the potential taxpayer exposure astronomical. Moreover, the Senate bill would allow a combination of both the borrower and the taxpayers to pay any subsidy cost, meaning that U.S. taxpayers could have even more to lose if and when projects default.
It is also problematic that the Senate bill contains no requirements ensuring the diversity of projects that could receive these taxpayer-backed loan guarantees. Eligible projects include non-renewable technologies like coal-to-liquids, coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS), and nuclear power. These technologies are all extremely costly, which could enable them to get the majority of available credit support under the program. The lack of a limit on the amount of financial assistance that could be provided to any one technology in the Senate bill would increase the likelihood that the CEDA project portfolio will be disproportionately weighted in favor of costly, non-renewable energy technologies at the expense of less expensive, cleaner and more scalable technologies.
No Global Warming Pollution Metric
Finally, the Senate bill also lacks a metric for global warming pollution, which would ensure that the fund achieves the greatest emissions reductions per dollar invested. With access to potentially unlimited loan guarantees and no cost-effective emissions reduction metric, increased electricity demand could be filled by non-renewable, costly sources of energy, further eroding the competitive position of renewable resources.
Any congressionally authorized "clean energy bank" must comply with FCRA and be subject to the congressional oversight process so that the taxpayer is not exposed to extreme financial risk. The Senate's American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009 lacks this crucial protection as well as a cap for individual technologies. CEDA must have a limit on the amount of financial assistance that can go to any one technology so that a small number of large, costly projects like nuclear power and CCS do not crowd out assistance for renewable and energy efficiency technologies. Finally, CEDA must contain a metric for global warming pollution to determine project funding priorities based on the amount of heat-trapping emissions reduced per dollar invested in the shortest amount of time.
[1] GAO report at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07339r.pdf, CBO report at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/82xx/doc8206/s1321.pdf
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/solutions/clean-energy-deployment-admin.html
Friday, July 3, 2009
Nuclear energy neither clean nor safe
Comment: People in Canada do not want uranium mining or nuclear power! Is that the reason for Canada to come south to take America's uranium? Canada, we are not welcoming your uranium mining, we do not want uranium mining in Virginia or anywhere else in America!
July 03, 2009
Re:Nuclear delay called risky,
July 1
Several assumptions need to be corrected. Canada's energy mix is 59.8 per cent hydro, 16.1 per cent coal, 11.6 per cent nuclear, 6.7 per cent oil, 4.9 per cent natural gas and 0.9 per cent renewables.
Hydro will continue to produce the same amount of electricity every year; however its proportion of the energy mix will decline due to net increases in demand. Wind generates power 30 per cent of the time, solar 20 per cent and other renewables 30 to 50 per cent.
Replacing all nuclear and fossil fuel energy sources with renewables by 2040 would result in this mix: 47.2 per cent hydro; 13.8 per cent wind; 7.2 per cent solar; 5.5 per cent tidal/wave; 23.1 per cent geothermal; 3.2 per cent other renewables, such as biomass and waste water.
This is a manageable expectation, especially in Ontario where we have made a commitment through the Green Energy Act. The GTA has made significant progress in both renewable sources of energy and energy conservation.
Renewable energy is clean, safe and cost effective. The same cannot be said about nuclear.
Uranium mining is not clean; the transport of radioactive materials is hazardous; waste management solutions do not ensure safety; and nuclear weapons proliferation is a serious threat.
Amy Collard, Natural Resources Critic, Green Party of Canada
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/660100
July 03, 2009
Re:Nuclear delay called risky,
July 1
Several assumptions need to be corrected. Canada's energy mix is 59.8 per cent hydro, 16.1 per cent coal, 11.6 per cent nuclear, 6.7 per cent oil, 4.9 per cent natural gas and 0.9 per cent renewables.
Hydro will continue to produce the same amount of electricity every year; however its proportion of the energy mix will decline due to net increases in demand. Wind generates power 30 per cent of the time, solar 20 per cent and other renewables 30 to 50 per cent.
Replacing all nuclear and fossil fuel energy sources with renewables by 2040 would result in this mix: 47.2 per cent hydro; 13.8 per cent wind; 7.2 per cent solar; 5.5 per cent tidal/wave; 23.1 per cent geothermal; 3.2 per cent other renewables, such as biomass and waste water.
This is a manageable expectation, especially in Ontario where we have made a commitment through the Green Energy Act. The GTA has made significant progress in both renewable sources of energy and energy conservation.
Renewable energy is clean, safe and cost effective. The same cannot be said about nuclear.
Uranium mining is not clean; the transport of radioactive materials is hazardous; waste management solutions do not ensure safety; and nuclear weapons proliferation is a serious threat.
Amy Collard, Natural Resources Critic, Green Party of Canada
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/660100
Friday, June 19, 2009
Bishops question nuclear ethics
Comment: We are stewarts of Mother Earth, we need to protect her and fight against uranium mining and milling, plus nuclear power!By Graeme Morton,Calgary Herald; With files from Jamie hall,
Edmonton JournalJune 18, 2009
CALGARY - Alberta's six Catholic bishops say serious ethical questions must be answered before any decision can be made about whether or not to build nuclear reactors in the province.
In a pastoral letter issued Wednesday, the Alberta Conference of Catholic Bishops called for more public input into the nuclear power question, citing concerns about stewardship of the environment, effects on water supplies, protection of human life, security threats and adequate consultation.
Calgary Catholic Bishop Fred Henry said expert opinions on nuclear energy are divided and the debate can easily become polarized.
"The recent online survey the department of en-e rgy conducted was hardly adequate considering the size of this issue and the potential impact it could have on future generations and on the environment," said Henry.
"Given the number of problems we've had concerning nuclear energy in Canada, we have to have a good public hearing, a broad, thoughtful discussion on this. It's high time we raised some serious questions."
Ontario-based Bruce Power has proposed building a$6.2-billion nuclear power plant in the Peace River region of northwestern Alberta.
Alberta Energy spokesman Bob McManus said the provincial government has used a number of methods to gather public opinion on the contentious issue.
"We conducted forums in a number of centres around Alberta where we heard from ordinary Albertans, we've just completed the online survey and there have been numerous letters and phone calls," said McManus. "So we think it's been a fairly extensive public engagement process and we're awaiting the results of that."
Henry said the Alberta bishops hope to develop some form of study guide by the fall which will help Catholic parishes and interested individuals educate themselves on the nuclear power issue.
"I don't know if we necessarily want to lead the public discussion, but we'd certainly want to be a player," said Henry of the church's role in encouraging input.
"One of our roles is to raise the pointed moral and ethical questions that need to be asked," he said.
In their letter, the bishops state, "A further sustained consultation is needed where all stakeholders can speak face-to-face with government decision-makers in a public, transparent process. It is especially important that the voices of those living near the sites of the proposed nuclear power plants, including Aboriginal and Metis communities, be heard."
Edmonton Archbishop Richard Smith, president of the provincial bishops' conference, said much of the discussion to date has focused on scientific, financial and technological issues.
"All of those are important. But what we'd like to suggest, as well, is that there are other ethical questions that really ought to be brought into the discussion," said Smith.
"Now that the possibility of a project has come before this province, let's weigh all of the risks and all of the benefits and make sure the people of province are well informed."
Elena Schacherl of the Nuclear Free Alberta Coalition applauded the bishops' stance.
"There are other options for generating power in Alberta.
The big thing is for more people to become educated about this issue.
People need to think about what kind of future they want for their children and grandchildren," said Schacherl.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/Technology/Bishops+question+nuclear+ethics/1708130/story.html
http://www.calgaryherald.com/Technology/Bishops+question+nuclear+ethics/1708130/story.html
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Hydroelectric doesn't compare to uranium mining
Comment: Great letter, Mr. Stuart! Remember, the Nuke bunch are responding to all articles about uranium mining and nuke power! They want the money, bunch of greedy jerks!Wednesday, June 10, 2009 10:37 AM EDT
In response to the letter by Mr. Donelson, who lives in northern Virginia, I can understand his viewpoint living in McLean, 200 miles away.
Mr. Donelson failed to mention that he is vice president of marketing and sales for USEC Inc.
He basically is responsible for the company's revenue generating from the sale of enriched and natural uranium.
How can you compare a hydroelectric plant to open-pit uranium mining?
If Mr. Donelson can name one uranium mine in the world that has not contaminated people or the environment, he needs to bring this information to our attention.
And also, if can he find a mine where people are living within a five-mile radius, not to mention contamination of a 75 mile radius through air and water, which will be traveling through our streams up into Lake Gaston and on to Virginia Beach, that would interest us also.
It's easy for people who live 200 miles away to dictate to those who will have to endure radioactive open pits, let alone the dust from the explosions when they start blasting.
People have to remember that this is a statewide moratorium. If this ban is lifted it will be state wide.
If Mr. Donelson bothered to look at the state map containing potential uranium resources in Virginia, and I'm sure he has, he would find it goes through Northern Virginia, Maryland and in to Delaware.
And as far as that economic engine goes, it's under your feet, too, in Northern Virginia.
So when they start talking about mining in NOVA, I'm sure you will welcome it with open arms.
I want to apologize to Mr. Jack Wyatt and his company for using his store in an article in my letter to the editor.
I did not realize there was gold down here, and I apologize for any inconvenience this may have come to him personally or to his company.
Timothy Stuart
Chatham
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/06/10/chatham/opinion/opinion04.txt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
