Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

"Would a truly "clean energy" source produce "one of the nation's most hazardous substances"? Of course not. So why include provisions on nuclear reactors in the state's Clean Energy Jobs Act, recently introduced in the state legislature? Nuclear reactors generate high-level radioactive waste, which is "one of the nation's most hazardous substances," according to the U.S. Govern-ment Accountability Office. In a November 2009 report, the respected nonpartisan agency found there were no good options for dealing with the radioactive waste. And, as the federal government continues its decades-long struggle to find a solution to this grave public safety, environmental and political problem, the costs to taxpayers and ratepayers will skyrocket."

"Would a truly "clean energy" source produce "one of the nation's most hazardous substances"? Of course not. So why include provisions on nuclear reactors in the state's Clean Energy Jobs Act, recently introduced in the Legislature? Nuclear reactors generate high-level radioactive waste, which is "one of the nation's most hazardous substances," according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. In a November report, the respected nonpartisan agency found there were no good options for dealing with the radioactive waste. And as the federal government continues its decades-long struggle to find a solution to this grave public safety, environmental and political problem, the costs to taxpayers and ratepayers will skyrocket. In the meantime, radioactive waste is piling up at 80 sites in 35 states, including three sites in Wisconsin. Many sites have active nuclear reactors, where the mounting waste problem has forced plant operators to rearrange "the racks holding spent fuel in (cooling) pools … to allow for more dense storage," according to the GAO report. "Even with this re-racking, spent nuclear fuel pools are reaching their capacities.""

"I am increasingly convinced that in order for us to survive the 21st century, we (individually and collectively) must accept two principles of living: 1) We are all connected to each other and to our environment. 2) All energy for our homes, firms, factories and farms must be clean and renewable. We probably have less than two generations to transition. Right now things are not looking good. We stand at a crossroads concerning how we fuel our vehicles and power our homes. Electric vehicles (EVs) are a good replacement for carbon-fueled cars, but only if we charge them with renewable energy (geothermal, wind, solar, tidal, even biomass). Any other approach will require greater demand for increasingly limited electricity. In fact, if every household in America suddenly bought an electric car averaging 5 kilowatt-hours to top off each day, household electric demand would increase about 20 percent (adding perhaps 10 percent more demand to an already overloaded grid nationally). "

"By Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) The fantastic success of the movie "Avatar," in which an interplanetary Stone Age species of people overcomes an expeditionary force that looks suspiciously like the U.S. Army, is convincing millions of Americans that the secret of success in the modern world is to "go back to nature." President Barack Obama mirrored this in his Inaugural address when he said, "We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories." It all sounds so easy - free energy all around us, waiting to be harvested at little or no environmental cost, putting us back in tune with nature."

"Charles S. Faddis is a retired CIA operations officer and the former head of the CIA's unit focused on fighting terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction. The author of "Willful Neglect: The Dangerous Illusion of Homeland Security," Faddis is also president of Orion Strategic Services, a Maryland-based security firm that does consulting work for the Department of Defense and counter-terrorist training for private firms. "

"President Barack Obama's interest in nuclear power has kicked off a new national debate on the industry, and it's about time. The last U.S. nuclear power plant to be built came on line decades ago, and advances in technology since then make some earlier objections obsolete. But two familiar issues remain: the overall cost of nuclear generation and the safe, long-term storage of waste. Obama and Congress need to resolve these challenges before making nuclear power a major part of a national energy policy designed to reduce the risk of climate change. Even now, the United States produces more electricity from nuclear power plants than any other nation in the world. But the total output of the 104 reactors amounts to only 20 percent of the nation's electrical needs. Many European countries have been more aggressive in pursuing nuclear power, including France, which has 58 plants generating 76 percent of its power. Worldwide, there are just over 400 plants producing 15 percent of the world's energy."

"One suspects the loneliest jobs in Ottawa these days involve being either technical experts or program overseers responsible for advising the government on adopting best practices. Over the past four years, the Harper government has mocked, ignored or fired almost everyone it has in place to provide guidance on the most complex issues that Canada needs to address. From the firing of the head of the Nuclear Safety Commission and the watchdogs of the RCMP and military, the national science adviser and Canada's chief electoral officer, to mocking the parliamentary budget officer and members of the diplomatic corps, to attacking the judiciary, charities and human rights groups, there is barely an expert in Ottawa who hasn't been marginalized or disrespected by this government."

"At 1:23 in the morning on April26, 1986, there was a disastrous chain reaction in the core of reactor No.4 at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. A power surge ruptured the uranium fuel rods, while a steam explosion created a huge fireball that blew the roof off the reactor. The resulting radioactive plume blanketed the nearby city of Pripyat. The cloud moved on to the north and west, contaminating land in neighboring Belarus, then moved across Eastern Europe and over Scandinavia. From the Soviets: utter silence. There was no word from the Kremlin that the worst nuclear accident in history was under way. Then monitoring stations in Scandinavia began reporting abnormally high levels of radioactivity. Finally, nearly three days after the explosion, the Soviet news agency TASS issued a brief statement acknowledging that an accident had occurred." -- National Public Radio, April 2006 That was then, this is now. On Friday, April 30, at the Unitarian Universalist Meetinghouse at 108 School St., there will be a public reading of Voices From Chernobyl, which recounts the human toll of a 1986 nuclear disaster in Chernobyl, Ukraine. The nuclear power industry has made some strides in safety over the past 24 years, but we should not kid ourselves. History has proven that whatever man makes can, and in all probability will, break. The question is not so much will the world ever see a nuclear catastrophe on the "

"With the nation considering more nuclear energy, a bill that requires mill operators to clean up as they go is a smart move. Given the atrocious environmental record of uranium mills in Colorado and the West, a bipartisan effort in the General Assembly designed to keep mill operators from leaving behind costly piles of toxic waste makes good sense. Legislation that easily passed in the state House last week would keep mills from gaining permits to expand their operations until operators cleaned up existing waste. The bill attempts to keep these operations accountable to the public and make environmental violations few and far between. It also would tighten regulation of accepting out-of-state waste, or so-called "alternate feed" material, that can be processed at the mills."

"With Los Alamos National Laboratory taking on many of the nuclear-weapons manufacturing duties from the defunct Rocky Flats plant, it makes a certain amount of sense that the federal Department of Energy would give the National Nuclear Security Administration, one of its agencies, a leading oversight role on "the Hill." NNSA, in fact, was created 11 years ago in response to security lapses at LANL. It's concerned with security at every step of the nuclear process - nuclear-propelled ships and energy sources also come under its purview. But nuclear weapons tend to get its highest priority. The environment is - or so it claims - a big part of its mission, and its record in many places, including America's major shipyards, appears as solid as might be expected from an overseer of our nuclear navy. "

"It is rare, though not unheard of, for me to use my column to take issue with another columnist. I find much to appreciate from the energy that Robert Benich supplies to this community. Now I find that I do need to register my reaction to his recent nuclear power perspective as it appeared in the Morgan Hill Times. Benich's March 30 Guest View contains two fundamental flaws in its analysis of the real life application of nuclear technology to the production of electricity, both of them errors of omission. One is the over simplification of the safety concerns and the other is the question of cost. These are closely connected as the level of safety that we require will be very expensive to an industry that already requires heavy governmental subsidy to be even marginally profitable."

"Wisconsin's Clean Energy Jobs Act could be a job killer -- but not from energy efficiency or renewable energy, as some are claiming, against all evidence. The nuclear portion of the bill is far more likely to raise electric rates by opening the door to building expensive new nuclear reactors and allowing for prepayment schemes to fund them. I was born and raised in Wisconsin but have spent the past decade in Savannah, Ga., working with the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. I've seen firsthand how the push for risky new nuclear reactors has impacted Southeastern states. It's not an experience that Wisconsinites would want to replicate. In recent years Georgia, Florida and South Carolina have all passed legislation to encourage building new nuclear reactors. What's happened next -- particularly in Florida and South Carolina -- is that ratepayers already dealing with tough economic times have seen their electricity bills increase."

"Community leaders are right to push for more say in Hanford's future, and they need to keep up the pressure. Planning for life after cleanup needs to be a partnership between the Tri-Cities and the Department of Energy. In a recent letter to Ines Triay, DOE assistant secretary for environmental management, Tri-City political leaders and economic development officials turned up the heat. Forging a common vision doesn't seem out of reach, but the process could benefit from a greater sense of urgency. The federal presence at Hanford will continue for decades, perhaps longer, but the multibillion-dollar budgets for cleanup won't."

"Nuclear power has never lived up to the promises of its backers. Their latest claim -- that nuclear energy represents an easy answer to global warming -- has as much validity as that old industry chestnut of producing energy "too cheap to meter." Let's not be duped again. Four decades ago, when I served as national coordinator for the first Earth Day, millions of Americans mobilized on behalf of the environment. This year, we know that the centerpiece of a healthy environment is safe, clean and sustainable energy. Climate change was a phrase unknown back in 1970; today it is part of our popular vocabulary. Halting the advance of global warming tops the priority list of environmental issues that threaten our well-being."

Expand eligibility for program A coalition of senators from the West is proposing to expand the number of Americans eligible for the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program. This would be a compassionate way to extend redress to people in Utah and other states who are not eligible for compensation now. Congress should enact it. Congress created the program in 1990 to compensate Americans who likely suffered cancers and other illnesses caused by nuclear fallout from above-ground testing of atomic weapons in Nevada between 1951 and 1962. It also compensates those who mined, milled and transported uranium for the weapons and got sick as a result. Congress expanded eligibility in 2000. People qualify for an award if they are diagnosed with one or more of 27 medical conditions and prove that they lived in a designated area downwind or worked in the uranium industry during a specific time period. The law covers all states where uranium was mined and processed as well as certain counties in Nevada, Utah and Arizona, where fallout from the nuclear testing was significantly measured. "

"As research scientists and federal regulators gathered in Washington, D.C., last month to discuss a new study of cancer rates near nuclear power plants, Sarah Sauer of Corydon, Ind., asked them for a favor. Don't forget the people behind the numbers, said Sarah, 16, a sophomore at Presentation Academy in Louisville. Moments earlier, as she spoke to the National Academy of Sciences panel, the teen brought some in the room to tears, standing on a step-stool to reach the microphone as her high-pitched and strained voice told as much about her cancer battle as her words. Linda Modica, a Sierra Club member from Tennessee who attended the panel meeting, said Sarah was a brave girl."

"Orrin Hatch wants federal experts to take another look at the scientific information linking radioactive fallout from nuclear test explosions to illnesses suffered by downwinders. The goal is to establish whether additional Americans should be eligible for federal compensation. Sen. Hatch is right that additional study is warranted, especially now that some members of Congress from Western states are sponsoring legislation that would greatly expand eligibility under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. Sen. Hatch sponsored the original version of that law in 1990 and its expansion in 2000. He reacted with skepticism to the latest proposal to enlarge the geographical area in which Americans would be eligible, saying that it was not justified by the science and would be too expensive. He is correct that any expansion should be made in light of the latest scientific information."

"If Exelon, the owner of the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant, thought it could let one of the largest discharges of tritium in U.S. commercial nuclear plant history slip by, the state Department of Environmental Protection has proved it wrong. Thanks in part to the reporting of Asbury Park Press Staff Writer Todd Bates, whose story in Sunday's Press pointed out that Oyster Creek still hadn't developed a cleanup plan more than a year after at least 180,000 gallons of cancer-causing radioactive tritium entered groundwater, the DEP has come down hard on Exelon. On Friday, DEP Commissioner Bob Martin issued a Spill Act directive, compelling Exelon to install deeper groundwater monitoring wells and to prevent the tritium from ever reaching the region's drinking water supplies. The DEP said it has initiated a "new and through investigation" into the leaks, and will force Oyster Creek's co-operation."

"The human-caused oil gusher on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico illustrates a point about low-probability, high-cost industrial disasters: The industry will pay some; the public will pay the rest in cash and trauma. The nuclear power industry is a lot like that. On one hand, utility companies assure us that nuclear technology is exceedingly safe. On the other hand, it's clear that they don't think a serious accident is out of the question, since they refuse to build nuclear power plants unless the government limits their liability, as it has done since the 1950s. How safe is nuclear energy? Judging from the actions of those in the industry, it's not safe enough for them to bet their own companies' measly futures on it unless they have government backup (that's us). A major accident is improbable, but a nuclear catastrophe would make BP's spill in the gulf look like a paper cut. "

"The five largest nuclear powers (USA, UK. France, Russia, and China) are set to impose tougher sanctions against non-nuclear Iran, while reminding the other two non-atomic states such as Turkey and Brazil, that only they can decide how and when to solve (or not) their purposely escalated conflict with Iran. In line with that, and in a decision clearly taken beforehand, the five permanent Security Council powers reached on May 19, 2010 a deal on a new set of tougher sanctions against Tehran. The decision was announced only few hours after Iran agreed to deliver to Turkey its low-enriched uranium and to receive, in exchange, nuclear fuel for its plants within one year. According to the terms of the agreement, the entire exchange process is to be carried out under the direct, strict supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)."