Group items tagged

TMI-Alert Inc. sharply disagrees with the results of a recent poll paid for and released by Exelon on the relicensing of Three Mile Island. At issue are the questions that were not asked. The poll also failed to note that a majority of the folks who actually testified before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission were against extending the license of TMI-1.

A proposed third reactor for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant is a textbook example of the nation's energy dilemma. While it would help alleviate Maryland's approaching energy supply crunch, is an extremely expensive and otherwise problematic new nuclear reactor the best choice over the long haul?

The fight to preserve public lands adjacent to the Grand Canyon from uranium mining continues despite the Bush administration's refusal to cooperate. It's a good and necessary fight, and we're grateful to Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., who has led the battle in Congress, and to the Center for Biological Diversity, the Grand Canyon Trust and the Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter, who are leading the fight in the courts.

The Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency should be restructured. It should look for nuclear technology opportunities using Yucca Mountain for Nevada rather than be against Yucca. Nevada could benefit greatly from nuclear technology by allowing nuclear power plants using "reprocessing."

Pop Quiz: what source of energy has received the most government subsidies since World War II, has a by-product that has remained dangerous for thousands of years, and is a major component of McCain's energy proposal? If you said "oil," you answered incorrectly. What I'm talking about is nuclear energy - 1950's energy of the future. Back then, it was thought that nuclear energy would be the radioactive wave that would carry the world into the atomic age, supplying nearly all of the world's electricity and a significant portion of its commercial energy. Obviously, nuclear energy has failed to live up to this expectation.

The Bush administration believes there is nothing wrong with building a nuclear waste dump that could cause at least one of every 125 individuals who live nearby to contract cancer. But if you happen to be one of those residents, chances are you won't be feeling good about the odds of getting that potentially fatal disease. Unfortunately, those will be the odds of getting cancer for future residents who live in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain should that site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas be turned into a dump for the nation's high-level nuclear waste.

The Sept. 13 editorial keeps up the drumbeat of The News to open Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste storage. Editorial page opinions in the past presented arguments both pro and con for nuclear power and the storage of its high-level toxic waste. Certainly there are justified concerns about the long-term storage of this waste. Those concerns have been expressed by trustworthy people in science and industry with no ax to grind. Advertisement This editorial spoke to a seldom expressed concern of ours, "The Yucca Mountain site could spur the expansion of nuclear power throughout the nation." As a consequence of this the need for more sites like Yucca Mountain could be increased as need for waste storage grows.

The top nuclear negotiators of the United States, South Korea and Japan rushed to Beijing to hold intense discussions for three days last week. They gathered in Beijing after North Korea announced it will stop disabling its nuclear program while showing signs of reactivating its nuclear facilities. The North's Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan did not show up in Beijing. The three negotiators helplessly returned home after asking China's Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei to encourage North Korea to return to the six-way nuclear talks.

Professor Emeritus John C. Ringle ("U.S. would benefit from nuclear power, "Opinion, Aug. 21) asserts, "France, Great Britain, Japan and Russia derive great benefit from reprocessing, " and concludes, "We [The US] should be doing the same." Advertisement I write from London, England. I cannot speak for France, Japan or Russia, but can enlighten your readers that the chemical separation of plutonium from uranium and fission products in irradiated nuclear fuel through the process called nuclear reprocessing has not proved a great benefit to Britain. It has resulted in significant radiological pollution of the Irish Sea, angering our neighbors, Ireland, for several decades, as well as Nordic neighbors, Norway, concerned over radiological pollution of their pristine fishing waters.

Nuclear energy is increasingly being called upon as a clean and renewable alternative to fossil fuels. As the threat of global warming becomes clearer, nuclear energy is lauded as a carbon-free, clean energy solution. This is an absolute myth. When looking at the entire fuel cycle, one quickly realizes the mining, milling, processing and transportation of uranium fuel for reactors are extremely energy intensive and will emit tons of global-warming pollution.

Mike Fox had it all wrong in his Aug. 21 editorial. He repeated a lot of uranium industry propaganda, but apparently didn't do his research. So here's some information to help him further consider the issues. First, nuclear power is many times more expensive than the alternatives. It's also riskier, and nuclear power plants take longer to build - at least 10 years, compared to 18 months for a wind farm. This isn't just some wild environmentalist talk. The major financial agencies (Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, etc.) won't invest in nuclear power because, they say, it has unique risks. Quoting their July 2007 letter to the federal Department of Energy - "We believe these risks, combined with the higher capital costs and longer construction schedules of nuclear plants as compared to other generation facilities, will make lenders unwilling at present to extend long-term credit to such projects in a form that would be commercially viable."

It's clear that Bob Loux is guilty of, at a minimum, poor judgment in granting himself and other staff members in the Nuclear Projects Office raises above the level authorized by the state. But it's troubling to think that lack of judgment may have jeopardized the mission of his agency, which is to assure that the health, safety, and welfare of Nevada's citizens are protected with regard to the Yucca Mt. nuclear waste project.

SOARING energy prices are big news once again this week, with Gordon Brown's announcement of £910 million being squeezed out of the energy companies to help poor folk deal with their bills. Poor old Gordon was promptly met with a blast of complaint that his proposals were rubbish. An energy economist might conclude from this that big gas and electricity bills are a hot political topic because the public is highly sensitive to high prices.

Nuclear waste continues to pile up at reactors across the United States and here in South Carolina. At the Oconee Nuclear Station, the pools for spent nuclear fuel rods are full. Space can continue to be added to dry storage in Oconee, but that space is intended for less radioactive waste. Advertisement The problem in Oconee is a familiar one across the nation. More than 60,000 metric tons of spent fuel are being stored at 121 locations, mostly nuclear reactors, in 39 states.

was startled and dismayed to learn that Gov. Jim Doyle accepted nearly $24,000 from Florida Power & Light executives a few weeks before weakening his opposition to nuclear power in Wisconsin. FPL is the current owner of the atomic power station located at Point Beach. Of course a Doyle spokesperson described the idea of a quid pro quo as being "ridiculous," but the timing remains highly suspicious.

Since when is nuclear an "alternative energy source"? Nuclear power has been around for decades. It's second only to coal for electricity production in the United States, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. And yet in its recent public survey, Three Mile Island repeatedly refers to nuclear power as an "alternative energy source."

Senator Voinovich brags that he introduced 2002 legislation that continued the Price Anderson indemnity for the nuclear power industry, thus allowing further nuclear power development. The Nuclear team of the Ohio Sierra Club is organizing a rally to challenge Senator George Voinovich's support for the expansion of nuclear power in Ohio. At a time when Ohioans are already reeling from multiple economic blows and environmental devastation, a ramping up of nuclear power will only leave the state with more contamination, more sickness and more debt. Like others in the pro-nuclear lobby, Voinovich has tried pasting a happy face on nuclear power by claiming that nukes are "clean, green, safe and cheap" and that they offer a solution to the global climate crisis. But the truth lies in the opposite direction.

On a Connecticut public radio program I listened to recently, two guests discussed their views of the growing energy problem overwhelming the US economy. Both pundits, who are political columnists for national magazines, agreed that in addition to conservation measures and an increase in renewable sources, nuclear power is a card that the US must hold in its hand in order to reduce our reliance on foreign oil and our consumption of fossil fuels. Both speakers agreed that nuclear was a good investment, as it was "clean and had almost no carbon footprint."

It's amazing that nuclear power is considered clean and safe when its by-products require burial deep under Earth's crust for 10,000 to 100,000 years before it no longer poses a direct threat to life. Nuclear power is certainly more environmentally-friendly than fossil-fuel- driven power plants - humans have literally changed the environment using fossil fuels. But, it's clearly not the winner of the "Go Green" award.

It's all energy, all the time for Barack Obama and John McCain, who lately have talked about little else than their respective energy plans. Unfortunately, both blueprints could use some work. Obama is so eager to pander to voters angry about high gas prices that he has abandoned his own green principles by opening the door to more offshore drilling and calling for more oil production from domestic shale. Yet that's nothing compared with McCain, whose plan to boost nuclear power is an insult to voters' intelligence.