Grist: States fight back against nuclear power, even as the feds remain in its thrall

[kristopher]

States fight back against nuclear power, even as the feds remain in its thrall
by Arne Jungjohann, 2 Jun 2011
This is part three in a series on the United States and nuclear power. Read parts one, two, and four (link below).

Although Democrats and Republicans in Congress feed at the nuclear industry's trough in equal measure, Republicans in particular have been trying hard for years to bring about a renaissance of nuclear power in the United States. If they had their druthers, 100 new nuke plants would be built during the next two decades -- on top of the 104 reactors already operating. The Republicans' battle cry is "all of the above" -- a strategy that supposedly leaves out no energy option. This is pure political eyewash -- a cover for a brutal agenda of more oil and gas drilling, more coal, and more nuclear power.

But the Democrats too are relatively amenable to nuclear power, including the Obama White House. President Obama has requested that Congress triple the Bush-era nuclear loan guarantees to $54.5 billion. After the Fukushima catastrophe, he came out again in favor of building new nuclear power plants. As a former senator from Illinois, he has been closely tied to Exelon, one of the biggest nuclear corporations in the U.S., since the beginning of his political career. Obama's team of advisers is shot through with former employees of the nuclear industry: top advisers David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel were once on the Exelon payroll, and the corporation contributed generously to Obama's presidential campaign.

The federal bureaucracy, too, stands wholly behind nuclear power. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) monitors compliance with safety standards and approves lifespan extensions for nuclear power plants. So far, it has not turned down a single renewal application: 62 reactors have already received approval of an extension of their 40-year lifespans to 60 years; a dozen more applications are pending. The NRC was embarrassed by an internal investigation in September 2007 which revealed that in more than 70 percent of cases, text from industry's applications was copied verbatim into the NRC's approvals. Nuclear experts like Michele Boyd of the Physicians for Social Responsibility had assumed that the old plants built during the 1960s and '70s could not be approved today , but their lifespan extensions keep getting the OK. One NRC spokesperson commented, "We have a high degree of confidence that our 104 reactors have adequate protection" -- despite the fact that 23 of those reactors are very similar to the Fukushima plant.

Singing another tune in the states

At the state level, things look a lot different. In a number of states, politicians and activists are fighting for early shutdown of reactors they believe to be unsafe, and corporations are deciding that new nuclear plants are just too risky....

http://www.grist.org/nuclear/2011-06-02-states-fight-back-against-nuclear-power-even-as-the-feds-remain

[AndyTiedye]

1. What Will Diabolo Canyon and San Onofre Do When the Big One Hits California?

Those plants are only built for a 6.5-7.0. The Big One would be at least an 8.0.
When that hits, those nukes gonna bust open and melt down just like Fukushima did.
:nuke:
They would severely irradiate most of California, and to a lesser extent the entire country.

[kristopher]

2. "The Big One"

That's one of the reasons I left Japan. Everyone had been waiting there for "The Big One" for about 20 years then (1995), and when the Kobe quake hit and killed 6000 people the stress level rose through the roof. Shortly after in Tokyo we had a 5.6 IIRC and per drills we gathered together at the soundest structural part of the apartment and huddled waiting for it to end. We'd been through literally thousands of quakes over the past decade, but like I said, after Kobe everything was different.

In the midst of the shaking I saw my youngest daughter's face; she was completely pale and it was obvious she was terrified. It was that moment that I decided to return home.

I've often wondered if it was the right decision, but after March 11th, that doubt has disappeared.

People lose their ability to maintain readiness in cases like this. We know the event is going to happen, but there are so many near misses between actual events that we eventually just let down our guard and pretend it is a myth.

[diane in sf]

6. Quite a bit of US produce comes from the central valley,

[kristopher]

10. Well that's alright, it would just be like eating a couple of bananas each day.

Yes, :sarcasm:

[kristopher]

3. Why is the United States so obsessed with nuclear power?

by Arne Jungjohann
Why is the United States so obsessed with nuclear power?
31 May 2011 7:00 AM

After the nuclear catastrophe of Fukushima, as a German living in the U.S., I often get asked these days: What's going on in Germany with the shutdown of nuclear power plants -- is that all mass hysteria? There are good reasons why Germany is moving away so quickly from nuclear power. Certainly, fear is a factor. However, this angst in the face of a nuclear catastrophe has a rational core. Fukushima provides enough grounds to take every single nuclear power plant on the face of the Earth off-line. Regardless of whether the cause is an earthquake, a tsunami, a flood, a plane crash, a terrorist attack, or simple human error, failure of the emergency power system leads to uncontrollable consequences.

There is also an energy reality in Germany that differs from the United States. In Germany, the economic success of the renewable energy economy is visible between the North Sea and the Alps. Hundreds of thousands of new jobs have been created for steel workers, carpenters, technicians, architects, bankers, and farmers. Foreign companies have heavily invested in manufacturing plants for wind turbines, biogas systems, and solar panels in Germany. Nuclear power, on the other hand, is viewed as a constraint on this development. Nuclear and renewables are not perceived as allies, but as conflicting and competing energy sources. One is centralized, capital-intensive, ponderous, outdated, and anti-democratic, whereas the other is flexible, smart, labor-intensive, and open for community participation. Thus, in recent polls an overwhelming 85 percent of Germans favor a nuclear phaseout as fast as possible or at most within 10 years. To them it seems simply outdated to stick with a 1950s technology like nuclear that is risky, dirty, and blocking new investments in better technologies. It is like to holding on to your rotary phone instead of switching to a cell phone.

...Following Fukushima, the German government announced a three-month shutdown of eight of its 17 nuclear power plants and a review of its nuclear strategy. That's 8,400 megawatts of capacity off the grid. In mid-May, another five nuclear plants are down for maintenance with a capacity of 6,600 megawatts. That leaves four nuclear plants together supplying 5,400 megawatts of power. Are the lights still on? Are the trains still going? Are the car factories still humming? Yes, yes, and yes. No blackout followed; the power supply is stable. Nuclear power capacity is replaced by reducing surplus electricity exports, by using the reserve capacity of traditional back-up power plants for peak times, and by temporarily importing electricity from neighboring countries if necessary.

Some analysts have argued that the nuclear scale-back in Germany would prevent the country from reaching its long-term climate and energy goals. In reality, and as discussed here, Germany is already well on its way to transitioning from nuclear and fossil-fuel power to renewable energy. It is aiming for 35 percent renewables by 2020, and 80-100 percent by 2050. Not despite, but because of shutting down nuclear power, investments in renewable energies accelerate...

http://www.grist.org/nuclear/2011-05-31-why-is-the-united-states-so-obsessed-with-nuclear-power

[kristopher]

4. The nuclear industry has powerful backers and weak opponents in D.C.

The nuclear industry has powerful backers and weak opponents in D.C.

The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is the lobby association for the entire process chain of the nuclear industry in the U.S., from uranium mining to the manufacture of the reactors and the supply of nuclear fuel, all the way to nuclear power production. Its lobbyists are well-connected in the Obama administration and on Capitol Hill. In the last midterm and off-year election campaign cycle, politicians of both parties received approximately $4 million from the NEI. In order to boost public acceptance, shiny ad campaigns, such as those of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, filled the airwaves. This greenwashing by the NEI has repeatedly crossed the border of the permissible, and has been criticized by environmental and social organizations. The NEI PR staff even drafts opinion pieces which are sent to nuclear engineers across the country, to be signed and submitted to local newspapers.

In addition to the umbrella lobby, the major nuclear power plant operators and corporations to which they belong also play an important role. In the last election campaign, they, together with the NEI, spent sums for lobbying and campaign contributions that went into the double-digit millions. Chief beneficiaries of this largess were Congress members from the states where their corporate headquarters are located, as well as committee heads and members of the caucus leaderships. Contributions of up to $10,000 to each individual Congress member are legal. The most generous corporations were: Exelon -- $515,000... Duke Energy -- $475,000... Florida Power & Light (FPL) -- $507,000... Entergy -- $400.000...

Much of this money was intended to help push through a climate bill, an effort that was ultimately unsuccessful. The nuclear industry hoped that a cap-and-trade system would give it a competitive advantage over coal-fired power plants. Since the industry is a powerful voice in the business community that calls for fighting climate change and tightening pollution standards for conventional power plants, it has reached a truce with large parts of the environmental movement.

The anti-nuke movement is as weak as ...

http://www.grist.org/nuclear/2011-06-01-nuclear-industry-has-powerful-backers-weak-opponents

[kristopher]

5. Is pro-nuke enthusiasm in the U.S. waning?

Is pro-nuke enthusiasm in the U.S. waning?
by Arne Jungjohann

3 Jun 2011 4:00 AM

This is the fourth and final post in a series on the United States and nuclear power. Read parts one, two, and three.

Fukushima gave many Americans a sense of déjà vu: In 1979, a threatened explosion at Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station in Pennsylvania caused by venting an explosive gas mixture was just barely warded off. Faulty design and human error were to blame. Since then, no new nuclear power plants have been built in the United States (though some that were already under construction were completed).

But the industry has soldiered on, trying to present the public with a picture of nuclear as a clean, safe, and cheap energy option. In many ways, it's been successful: Nuclear power is now accepted as a firm element of the energy portfolio by the American political mainstream, across party lines. Under President George W. Bush, new loan guarantees were promised in 2005, and the industry celebrated that promise as a turn toward a new age of building nuclear plants. President Barack Obama has asked Congress to triple those guarantees to $54.5 billion.

Can we then look forward to a new renaissance of nuclear power in the United States, as its supporters like to claim? Unlikely, for the nuclear revival is on financially shaky ground. Exploding costs and cheap competition from natural gas are grave problems for the industry. The Wall Street banks see the new construction plans as too expensive and too risky. Even with billions in federal guarantees, American businesses can't afford the price of nuclear power. Only a handful of new nuclear projects have moved ahead in recent years, primarily at existing nuclear plant sites in the southeastern United States.

So anti-nuke activists are not afraid of any looming wave of new nuclear reactors, despite the fantasies of the lobbyists and some politicians. But they warn of a covert renaissance by way of 20-year lifespan extensions for dozens of old power plants.

In May 2011, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ...

http://www.grist.org/nuclear/2011-06-03-is-pro-nuke-enthusiasm-in-the-us-waning

[NNadir]

7. It's pretty funny that the intellectual lightweights at Grist have no interest in States

fighting dumping dangerous fossil fuel wastes into people's lungs.

That's because to spread their ignorance, Grist depends on people burning dangerous fossil fuels to light up their computers.

These fucking airheads are probably so disappointed that Fukushima's 9.0 earthquake and 15 meter tsunami still hasn't killed anyone, unless you count the pollution generated by brainless scientifically illiterate Greenpeace types driving their dangerous fossil fuel powered boats around while ignoring the people killed by gas explosions, dam collapses, and leaking solvents from the destroyed solar facilities in the same event.

Grist is just another member of the self-referential anti-nuke anti-science anti-intellectual circle jerk of vapid mystics.

No one serious gives a fuck what they say.

[kristopher]

8. Poor little feller still ain't got a clue...

The writer does an excellent job of explaining the view of the US from an outsider's perspective. Glad to see you appreciate his efforts.

How rapidly do you think global nuclear capacity is going to decline now? I imagine the nuclear exporting countries will continue to try to build, but I doubt if anyone that hasn't already made the move into nuclear is going to do so now.

Did you know that 75% of Dems are opposed to more nuclear power?

[Kolesar]

9. Speak for yourself -- fucking airheads

fucking airheads are probably so disappointed that Fukushima's 9.0 earthquake and 15 meter tsunami still hasn't killed anyone

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kristopher]

12. That post is quoting post #7

The only original words were "Speak for yourself".

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.