Tell Obama/Congress No Nukes! "Taking Germany 100% Solar/Renewable

[Liberation Angel]

Obama is thinking of putting $50 BILLION more to sweeten the pot for nuke companies in loan "Guarantees"

WE DO NOT NEED THIS DEADLY TECHNOLOGY ANYMORE!

And here is why:




http://www.grist.org/article/taking-germany-100-percent... /


http://www.blog.thesietch.org/2007/12/30/germany-going-... Going 100% Renewable (Or Yet Another Reason Why America Is Falling Behind)


Written by The Naib:

This is about the coolest damn thing ever. I have long thought that our big monkey brains could come up with a way to power all the little gadgets we have with nothing but renewable energy. Leave it to them wacky Germans to actually go and do it.

Scientists from the University of Kassel have been busy proving that Germany can power itself entirely by renewable energy. In an ongoing experiment called the KombiKraftwerk ‘Combined Power Plant’ (English version), they link 36 biogas plants, wind, solar and hydropower installations in a distributed network to show that no matter what the weather, or what time of day it is, germany could get all its energy from renewable power.

I don’t just mean adding a bit to the grid, I mean all of it. Peak load, base load, spikes, low power demand times, the works. Pretty freaking sweet if you ask me.

The test project is scaled to meet 1/10,000th of the electricity demand in Germany. This scale corresponds to the annual electricity requirements of a small town with around 12,000 households. Meaning that if scaled up large enough it could provide all of Germany’s power.

Projections show Germany has enough domestic resources to scale up production of renewables and replace all fossil fuels and nuclear power, and the scientists think the country can achieve full renewables based energy autonomy by mid-century.


Links to the research data and schematics at the linked article (2nd link)

[masuki bance]

1. Is Obama one of those "pro-nuke protocorporate propagandists"

you warned us about?

[Liberation Angel]

3. I guess we'll see - I hope not

I hear Rahm and Axelrod are according to some sources

I hope not

[Liberation Angel]

2. Now lets see if the unrecs can defeat support for this thread

go ahead and prove me wrong folks

tell me why this should not be recommended.

[incapsulated]

4. Well it was until I rec'ed it. n/t

[Liberation Angel]

7. Very cool, thanks

This is the future

[lindisfarne]

5. Are there more reliable sources than the ones you cite? Welcome, by the way

A different view is presented here:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/170348

Obama has been cautious whenever he's been asked about the issue. In a "Meet the Press" appearance in May, he hedged when the subject came up. "I think we do have to look at nuclear, and what we've got to figure out is can we store the material properly? Can we make sure that they're secure? Can we deal with the expense?" Not exactly a full-throated endorsement. Obama's lack of enthusiasm is easy to understand politically, especially given the apprehension many voters have about the safety of nuclear-power plants.
...
A bigger problem than the safety of the reactors themselves is what to do with the deadly waste they produce. Nuclear power is praised for its zero carbon emissions, but it comes at a price—radioactive fuel rods that remain toxic for thousands of years. If you're looking for a reason to feel queasy about building more nuclear reactors, this is it. While politicians bicker over where to put it all—nuclear waste is the ultimate "not in my backyard" dispute—the stuff is piling up. As things are now, a lot of it is simply stockpiled at the plants, submerged in open pools of water for as long as five years and eventually sealed in steel and concrete casks. "You have more than 100 reactors storing waste on-site, under what the Nuclear Regulatory Commission calls a temporary license, in the worst of all possible places," says Rochelle Becker of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, a nonprofit that monitors the nuclear-power industry. "In California, it's stored next to earthquake faults. In the rest of the country, you find that most waste is sitting very close to water supplies."

Nuclear-power companies pay a fee to the Department of Energy to pick up and store the waste, which by law becomes government property once it leaves the plant.

===\
In other words, our policies allow rich stockholders to get richer, without paying the full cost of storage - they've passed that cost onto us, the tax payer.

[Liberation Angel]

6. If you follow the links you can read the data and research in Germany: 100% renewable by 2050

You read it here first


and I would not wipe my butt with newsweek

[lindisfarne]

8. You're making claims about Obama which you haven't backed up with reliable sources and in fact,

I've provided a source which presents an very different view.

I have no doubt that much can be done with renewable sources, and that Germany will likely be a leader in this. They and Japan have bought up much of the solar panels produced in the last 5 years.

[Liberation Angel]

9. okay _ Obama is considering $50 BILLION in nuke funds as a compromise

I posted a story earlier

I'll find it

here it is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8519864

[lindisfarne]

10. Thanks. Energy Sec'y Chu is a big proponent of nuclear power.That doesn't mean Obama is.The Guardian

is the one that made the jump in logic, though.

Even though Chu is the energy secretary, his voice on this is only a recommendation (albeit a heavily weighted one). I haven't heard Obama come out and state anything as clear as the Guardian seems to feel it can.

It can't hurt to contact the White House, but I wouldn't be making the claim that Obama has established a position on this $50 billion - I don't even know that he's even been briefed & is reviewing (or considering) it.

We don't even need 100% renewable. 50% renewable and big steps toward conservation would be a huge step toward reducing the problem. The US has major wind resources. All it needs is transmission lines.

[Liberation Angel]

11. I read that Rahm and Axelrod were nuke lobbyists

but still want clarification on that.

I hope not

and it may have been less than a big deal

Obama has been very good on this so far but did mention nues in his G8 environmental speech in a pro manner which scares me

That is why I am trying so hard

and why I worry about organized opposition on this issue which is HUGE


$50 Billion of our money for the nuke industry is HUGE!

It should go to renewables and mass transit

[lindisfarne]

12. Obama recently (from Russia) set Rahm straight on the public option, so I wouldn't worry about

Rahm's views.

Nukes aren't going to happen any time soon. First, we would have to re-start nuclear engineering programs in universities - most remaining nuclear engineers are at retirement age or older now. No plant has been built for decades in the US.

And cost-wise, it does not make any sense. Even the power companies who want to build them know this: if the government does not guarantee them no responsibility for clean up and doesn't release them from liability, they themselves are unwilling to build them. They cannot even fund cleaning up the current ones adequately (http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/10/10/financial-fallout-market-tumbles-shake-nuclear-clean-up-funds/

But yes, keep advocating. Just don't make incorrect claims.
=======
From above link:
The stock market’s tumble is cracking the piggy bank designed to safely mothball Vermont’s Yankee nuclear power plant when the plant is evenutally shut down, notes the Boston Globe. Since the spring, the so-called “decommissioning fund” for the Entergy plant, which will pay to dismantle and safely entomb nuclear reactors when they are shut down, has lost about $40 million, or 10% of its value.

Granted, Vermont Yankee’s decomissioning fund was in trouble before Wall Street was. Entergy’s second-quarter earnings took a hit because the decommissioning fund’s investments were going south. State regulators estimate the clean-up fund could already have a $400 million shortfall, and earlier this year rejected requests to dip into the off-limits decommissioning fund to pay for storage of radioactive fuel.

But market turmoil certainly isn’t helping. All nuclear plants are required to have a fund set aside to pay for their eventual clean-up. Since nuclear plants have such a long operating life, and clean-up takes even longer, most rely on long-term investments to meet funding requirements.

How much does decomissioning cost? No one really knows. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission figures it should cost between $280 million and $612 million per reactor—or a maximum pricetag of about $63 billion for America’s 104 nuclear reactors. Then again, Britain estimates the total clean-up bill for its 19 nuclear reactors at $165 billion, although that does include the bill for long-term storage of radioactive waste.

[Sirveri]

15. Nuclear operators are not nuclear engineers.

Nuclear engineers design reactor cores and operating procedures. It's a fairly specialised field and there isn't a huge demand for it. Nuclear OPERATIONS however requires a lot more people to staff the plants. Considering the US Navy trains about 100,000 people per year to do that for their own uses, when those people leave the service they can generally line up good jobs in nuke ops. So long as you can get your foot into the door at a nuke plant, it's theoretically possible to go very high only holding a HS diploma.

As for cost, everything costs money, when oil is no longer cheaper than starbucks coffee we will finally see the real cost of a lack of energy efficiency.

[lindisfarne]

51. If we build more reactors, we need nuclear engineers, correct? For cost, see

http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/nuclear_power_plants/articles.cfm?ID=13449
for all the taxpayer subsidies paid for nuclear energy, while stockholders in the plant pocket money because they don't pay the full cost from start to decommissioning.

[Liberation Angel]

19. I worry that Obama is leaning towards a compromise to iv nuke companies $50 BILLION of our tax dolla

for a dangerous, deadly, and too expensive technology

it is sheer folly and lunacy

we should be funding projects like the German project I site in the OP

100% of energy needs from solar and renewables

no coal, no nukes, no internal combustion engines

no huge profits for halliburton, Bush, Cheney, GE etc if we o to local grids with shared energy production.

[lindisfarne]

52. What quote do you have from Obama to back up your worries? My grandmother worried about

many things but rarely had a reason to.

[Liberation Angel]

66. I heard hi speech at the G8 and I believe he included nuclear

but these reports are coming from activists with their ear on Washington

the buzz is that a deal is in the works for Obama to compromise and give the nuke industry $50 Million in the energy plan. Obama had not included that himself but he is being pressured into it nd may fold on this: hence the call to arms

[lindisfarne]

13. Nuclear's Fatal Flaws: Cost

http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/nuclear_power_plants/articles.cfm?ID=13449

Nuclear power came out a winner in the energy bill in 2005, largely due to a renewed push by the Bush administration to build new nuclear reactors for the first time in nearly 30 years. Consumers and the environment lost big. But nuclear power is not a solution to our country’s energy needs. Here are five key reasons: cost, security, safety, waste, and proliferation.

Despite its promise more than 50 years ago of energy “too cheap to meter,” the nuclear power industry continues to be dependent on taxpayer handouts to survive. Since its inception in 1948, this industry has received tens of billions of dollars in federal subsidies but remains unable to compete economically on its own.<1> On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed an energy bill that included over $13 billion in tax breaks and subsidies, as well as other incentives, for the nuclear industry. Here’s a rundown of some of the giveaways to the mature, wealthy industry included in the bill:
Expansion of Current Programs

Limited Liability: The Price-Anderson Act, enacted in 1957 as a temporary, 10-year measure to support the fledgling nuclear industry, limits the amount of primary insurance that nuclear operators must carry to $300 million and caps the total liability of nuclear operators in the event of a serious accident or attack to $10.5 billion. A serious nuclear accident could cost more than $600 billion in 2004 dollars<2> - taxpayers would be responsible for covering the vast majority of that sum. Price-Andersonfor commercial nuclear plants had expired as of Jan. 1, 2004for new reactors only. Reauthorizing the Price-Anderson Act to 2025, as the 2005 energy bill does, extends this subsidy to the proposed new generation of nuclear power plants. The nuclear industry claims that the new designs are “inherently safe.” Inherently safe should mean inherently insurable; therefore, nuclear operators should be able to privately insure them.

License Application Costs: The Nuclear Power 2010 program promotes the building of new nuclear power plants by 2010 by paying for half of the cost to apply for license applications. Through this program, which has received more than $120 million since FY2001, Exelon, Entergy, and Dominion have received funding for three pending Early Site Permit applications to site new reactors in Illinois, Mississippi, and Virginia, respectively. These companies are also part of two of the three consortia that have indicated that they intend to apply for a combined Construction and Operation License (COL) in 2007. DOE has agreed to provide $260 million to the NuStart consortium, and the Dominion-led one has asked for $250 million. The ESP applicants, Entergy, Exelon and Dominion, had combined profits of $4 billion in 2004. The COL consortia members are among the wealthiest corporations in the world, including Bechtel, General Electric, and Duke Power, with more than $27.3 billion in combined profit in 2004.<3> If the nuclear industry believed that the next generation of nuclear plants is a good investment, they would be fully capable of financing both the plants and the research themselves.

Research and Development: The Department of Energy’s Generation IV program provides funding for up to half the cost of the development of new reactor designs. This program has already received more than $92 million since FY2001. The research and development costs for a single design are estimated to range from $610 million to $1 billion, depending on the type of reactor.<4> The nuclear power industry has been given more taxpayer dollars for research and development than all other energy sectors combined. The 2005 energy legislation authorizes another $2.9 billion for nuclear R&D and licensing.

Other Subsidies for New Plants

Taxpayer-financed New Plant Construction: Despite the current subsidies, the industry wants taxpayers to pay for building new reactors, too. The bill authorizes another $1.25 billion for a nuclear plant in Idaho to co-generate hydrogen fuel. While hydrogen may one day fuel our cars, using nuclear power to create the hydrogen fails to meet clean energy goals by creating thousands of tons of high-level radioactive waste.License applications for new nuclear reactors are also now exempted from NRC antitrust review.

“Risk Insurance”: The energy bill authorizes $2 billion in “risk insurance” to pay the industry for any delays in construction and operation licensing for 6 new reactors, including delays due to the NRC or litigation. Not only is this a waste of taxpayer dollars, it will put pressure on the NRC to rush its review of applications, shortchanging the public of its opportunity to participate in the process and jeopardizing public safety. This provision was not in either the House or Senate bill; it was added in the 11th hour during conference report negotiations.

Production Tax Credits: In order to attempt to make new nuclear power plants appear competitive with other sources of energy, the bill authorizes tax credits for the electricity produced by these reactors. According to the Energy Information Administration, a 1.8-cent tax credit for each kilowatt-hour of nuclear-generated electricity from new reactors during the first 8 years of operation will cost $5.7 billion in revenue losses to the U.S. Treasury through 2025.<6>

Loan Guarantees and Power Purchase Agreements: To mitigate the high capital costs of building new reactors, the bill authorizes the federal government to provide unlimited loan guarantees for 80% of the cost of new reactors. This will allow the industry to borrow at government treasury bond rates, rather than at rates typically paid by a large utility making a risky investment. The risk of loan default is estimated to be “well above 50 percent.”<7> The Congressional Research Service estimated that the taxpayer liability for loan guarantees covering up to 50% of the cost of building six new reactors would be $6 billion.<8>

Shutdown Subsidies: The bill changes the rules for funds that are to be used to clean up closed nuclear plant sites, costing taxpayers $1.3 billion.

Anti-Trust Exemption: Exemption of construction and operation license applications for new nuclear reactors from an NRC antitrust review, a potential windfall for energy companies and boondoggle for consumers.

[Liberation Angel]

14. Great info on why nukes are impossibly expensive and unreliable for energy

And why we need Obama NLT to capitulate on this issue.

$50 BILLION is a TOTAL waste and it would be pissing it down a dirty rathole

[uponit7771]

16. The French have had safe nukes for decades, left treats nukes as senseless as right treats abortion

Not only that but they recycle their nuke waste so the the half life is cut into quarter.

The science is there to make nukes safe, we're not living in 1981 any longer

[Liberation Angel]

17. Nukes in France are in trouble right now

Nukes in France are far less safe than you represent.

There are major problems in france with their nukes right now such that they have had to IMPORT energy. The expense for this stuff is insane.

see my next post for details (gotta find the link)

[Liberation Angel]

18. French nukes are a mess: see here (links)

The French Nuclear Medusa

A Third of French Reactors out of Action as Heat Wave Persists

One third of France's 58 reactors are out of action because of a prolonged heat wave that has forced the country to import electricity from Britain. A similar problem occurred during prior heat waves, exposing the vulnerability of such a heavy reliance on one technology to deliver electricity. Water is used to cool reactors but when water temperatures rise too high, reactors must shut down in the interest of safety. In addition, reactor discharge water temperatures must remain below 24C (75.2F) to avoid harm to aquatic wildlife and habitats.


Safety Regulators Questioning French Reactor Design

Background: The U.K. Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) has joined its Finnish counterpart in questioning the safety of Areva's European Pressurized Reactor (EPR). Specifically, NII has "serious concerns" about the EPR's "cerebral cortex," the computerized control and instrumentation systems (C&I) which monitor and govern plant operations, such as temperature, pressure, and power levels. NII's letter to Areva and ectricit/span> de France - now owner of British Energy, and proponent of building four EPRs at two sites in the UK - also questioned the design's lack of safety displays and manual controls for safe shutdowns, and concluded "We have serious concerns about your proposal which allows lower safety class systems to have write access to higher safety class systems..."

Our View: While AmerenUE's decision two months ago to cancel its plans to build an EPR at Callaway nuclear power plant in Missouri was a tremendous grassroots victory, there are still several EPR proposals targeted at the U.S. UniStar's EPR proposed at Calvert Cliffs, Maryland is on the Energy Dept. shortlist for nuclear loan guarantee funding and groundbreaking yet this year, while EPRs at Nine Mile Point New York, Bell Bend Pennsylvania, Amarillo, Texas, and Hammett Idaho are in various stages of development. And on June 18th, Duke, Areva, and USEC announced plans to build an EPR in Portsmouth, Ohio.

The emerging controversy is focusing safety concerns here and abroad over how a "standardized design" can be viewed so differently by one country's safety regulator to the next. As it now stands, regulators in France and the US are in disagreement with safety inspectors in the UK and Finland over exactly how to demonstrate the design safety of the EPR I&C systems. To make matters more even complicated and uncertain, the European EPR designs incorporate mixed uranium-plutonium oxide fuel use and raise more reactor safety and radioactive waste complications.

What You Can Do: Phone your U.S. Senators and Representative via the Capitol Switchboard at [phone], and President Obama via the White House Comment Line at [phone], to debunk the myth that France has solved all of nuclear power's problems. Urge them to block American taxpayer subsidies to French corporations for new reactors, new uranium enrichment facilities, and for a risky relapse into radioactive waste reprocessing. Go to the Beyond Nuclear for more information on the French Nuclear Myth.


Beyond Nuclear aims to educate and activate the public about the connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons and the need to abandon both to safeguard our future. Beyond Nuclear advocates for an energy future that is sustainable, benign and democratic. Beyond Nuclear staff can be reached at: 301.270.2209. Or view our Web site at: http://www.beyondnuclear.org /

[Liberation Angel]

22. I guess the abortion/nukes analogy is ok as both kill the foetus in utero

I do not think anti-abortion proponents are "senseless" - I just do not believe they have a right to select the moral choices women make.

In the instance of nuclear power this is a technology which, like abortion, kills foetuses (and even full term babies) in utero due to birth defects and mutations.

But opposing this danger and speaking about it and lobbying aainst it is in no way senseless.

[Liberation Angel]

20. I guess there are few recs for solar and renewables

sad

[scheming daemons]

21. No. Obama's stance on Nuclear power is correct.

Yours isn't.

[Liberation Angel]

23. He is giving in to the right wing procorporate nuclear interests

and jeez nothing like giving a subjective perspective to the discussion

I'm right, you're wrong neener neener unrec

[scheming daemons]

25. Every individual perspective is subjective, by definition

I'm pro-nuclear power, and I'm not right-wing.


Neither is Obama.



Your stereotypes don't hold.

[Liberation Angel]

26. I would argue that

nuclear power is a far right wing technology by definition.

It kills people for profit and greed.

It causes illness and reduces the population.

It produces bomb materials and proliferation of deadly materials.

It is a taxpayer supported boondoggle for the wealthy

But mostly it just kills people to no good end.

If you take the literal meaning of right vs. left (militarists vs peacemaking as in the right and left wing of the eagle symbol holding arrows and an olive branch) then this is a right wing technology

That is my educated objective opinion

One can be objective and see this.

But if Obama supports this he is IMHO supporting the right wingers (and granted this is a COMPROMISE, I am arguing it is a very foolish and dangerous one)

[Occam Bandage]

31. Nuclear power produces less background radiation than coal power does,

and emits zero greenhouse gases. It does not "kill people" for anything; Chernobyl was an example of deliberate disregard for safety precautions as a result of Soviet bureaucracy killing people. It's cheap, efficient, and safe.

Also, for an "educated opinion," you obviously have no idea where the terms "right wing" and "left wing" come from. It has nothing to do with the "eagle symbol," but rather with seating arrangements in the National Assembly during the French Revolution, which themselves were derived ultimately from the French system of Estates, with the First Estate being the nobility, the Second being the clergy, and the Third being the people.

[Liberation Angel]

36. By definition nuclear radiation is NOT background radiation it is excess man made radiation

and it is different from the radiation released when you burn coal and is far deadlier than naturally occurring radiation.

This is a false argument and one of the big lies that nuclear industry promotes.

The American eagle symbol may well have been based on the French "right" and "left" but nevertheless the symbol of left wing and right wig refers ALSO to the position of the wings holding the olive branch of peace and the arrows of war.

That is the American symbolism for right wing and left wing: war vs. peace

I am surprised you are not familiar with that.

[Occam Bandage]

57. Nuclear power plants produce less radiation than coal ones do, measured in rem.

I don't know what you mean by "it is different." Can you be more precise? I have a feeling the answer is, "no." I would also be very interested in knowing what makes it "far deadlier" than "naturally occurring radiation." One millirem is a millirem no matter where it comes from; it's by definition weighted for wavelength.

The American eagle symbol isn't based on the French National Assembly; the use of eagles in iconography dates back thousands of years, and the American depiction of the Bald Eagle is directly lifted from Roman iconography. The olive/arrow eagle was first printed before the French Revolution had even occurred, so I highly doubt they were "basing it on the French" at the time. And I extremely doubt that the French decided to seat the First Estate on the left and the Third Estate on the right because of that American eagle symbol, since they had been doing similar seating arrangements for centuries. I have no fucking idea where you got it into your head that "left wing" and "right wing" have anything to do with war and peace, but get it back out. It ain't true. It ain't remotely true. Heck, it doesn't even make sense, since the symbols are held in the talons and not in the wings.

The terms "left wing" and "right wing" are commonly used across the entire world. They've been used long before war became a lefty/righty issue; they originally were terms of economic/class interest and still are primarily so. The left wing is and always has been the people advocating for themselves; the right wing is and always has been entrenched economic interests advocating for themselves.

[avaistheone1]

59. Nuclear power plants are unsafe. That is why no private insurer will insure them. That is why we

the taxpayers are forced to pay for their insurance. I don't think we should have to pay for this very expensive insurance for an unsafe private enterprise.

How much more information do we need that they are unsafe when even private insurers will not provide coverage for them?

[Liberation Angel]

68. Different isotopes. It is like saying an ounce of water is as safe as an ounce of chlorine

because they are measured in liquid ounces.

If you drink them both one is much more dangerous because it affects you dfferently

The "equivalence" in rems or mreme is a false issue raised by the nuke industry to throw people off and confuse them.

Radioiodine produced by nuclear reactors (and not coal burning) gets absorbed by the tyroid and causes cancer and hormomal disruptions which can lead to death. There is no radioiodine in coal.

That is just one example.

[avaistheone1]

69. If nuclear power plants are safe than why don't they insurance themselves?

If investors aren’t willing to accept the risks of nuclear energy now, without taxpayers liable for any major catastrophe, maybe that tells you something about the technology.

[Occam Bandage]

76. Yes, and rem weights for wavelength, so the "isotope" business is taken care of in that.

Do you have any evidence that the most common scientific unit for radiation dose absorbed by living tissue is "a false issue raised by the nuke industry," or are you talking out of your ass yet again?

[Liberation Angel]

79. different radioisotopes have different health impacts MIT STUDY

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/32995/MIT-EL-79-014-06523632.pdf?sequence=1

[truedelphi]

80. If coal run utilities had the type of radioactive material

Held by nuclear plants, we would probably diss the coal utilities for that fact.

As it is we diss coal for its impact on the environment.

HAd this nation put the effort that the nation of Germany has into renewables, we would be well on the wya to having some top notch renewable utilities operating right now.

But hey hey, the USA always has some new war to fight, and thus committ our economy to death and destruction rather than to true growth.

[Liberation Angel]

84. well said

thanks

[phleshdef]

24. 50 billion dollars is NOTHING. Your dishonest titles calling nucleur power "nukes" is getting old.

[Liberation Angel]

27. $50 BILLION is NOTHING? It is a waste and as for "nukes" that is what we call them where i grew up

and where I worked.

It is short for "nuclear" and refers to nuclear power plants, bombs, and reactors.

what's wrong or dishonest about that?

That is just silly

[phleshdef]

28. Nuke implies bomb and you know it. And yes, when we are talking spending 50 bill is NOTHING!

[Liberation Angel]

32. where i'm from no nukes means no nuclear power plants OR more bombs

that is the common expression

It is a WASTED $50 Billion and we cannot afford it when renewables and solar can provide 100% of our needs and that has been proven.

[phleshdef]

44. No one commonly calls a nucleur power plant a nuke, You are only using that for negative effect.

[Liberation Angel]

49. Ever heard of the "No Nukes" concerts? They referred to nuclear power plants

In my community where I grew up we all called the nuclear power plant a nuke plant. Especially the people who worked there.

Your assertion is ridiculous.

[phleshdef]

53. Nuke plant is fine. But you are saying "nuke" by itself because you WANT to imply bombs.

I could give less of a shit about where you grew up and what people called things. I know what you are trying to do and I'm calling you out on it.

[Liberation Angel]

61. Not at all: Nuke plants are my issue

Maybe for some folks this would be confusing.

It was intended to be and is not intentional

[avaistheone1]

71. People have been refering to nuclear power plants as nukes too and have been doing so for decades.

A couple of my favorite political buttons say "No Nukes" with pictures of nuclear power plants on them. Those buttons are 30+ years old.

[Liberation Angel]

85. Yeah, all these pronukeres never heard of no nukes"

Damn

I remember when I had a no nukes bumper sticker from the clamshell alliance Re: Seabrook, New hampshire

[avaistheone1]

86. Rockers renew 1970s anti-nuke theme Rockers renew 1970s anti-nuke theme

By Andrew Miga, Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Browne and Graham Nash are putting a new millennium twist on their 1970s anti-nuclear message, urging Congress not to approve federal loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants.

"Thirty years ago, we felt that this monster was dead," Nash said. "It's trying to raise its ugly head."

Nearly three decades ago, the three were prominent in the anti-nuke movement, helping organize the No Nukes concerts at Madison Square Garden that stirred public opposition to nuclear power.

Tuesday, they were on Capitol Hill warning that a Senate version of a new energy bill contains a provision, backed by the nuclear industry, for loan guarantees that could serve as a "virtual blank check from taxpayers" to help build more nuclear plants.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2007-10-23-nukefree_N.htm



LOL I think the pronukers wish they had never heard of no-nukes. They are either willfully ignorant, or their heads are stuck in the sand.

Hey I used to live near Seabrook. I still have the button with cow that says "No Nukes", of course with the button with the power plant that says "No Cows".

[Liberation Angel]

87. I hope you voted in my no nuke poll here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8522636

The pronukes are winning

[Liberation Angel]

90. the pronukes are winning

any help?

[SidDithers]

29. Happy to unrec more anti-nuclear hysteria...nt

Sid

[Liberation Angel]

30. Hysteria? Hah. Pronuke hysteria is the norm here BUT..

it is like that all over.

[Liberation Angel]

33. French Nuke industry is NO solution and more useful info (links)

French reactors are a mess and other useful info

Reports, Papers and Info You Can Use

May 2009: Nuclear France Abroad: History, Status and Prospects of French Nuclear Activities in Foreign Countries. A new report from Mycle Schneider Consulting on the expansion of the French nuclear power industry across the world.

EPR: The French Reactor. A Costly and Hazardous Obstacle to Climate Protection. November 2008 report from Greenpeace International on the problems with the French Evolutionary Power Reactor, proposed for Maryland, Missouri, Pennsylvania and New York in the U.S.

France’s Nuclear Failures: The Great Illusion of Nuclear Energy, November 2008 report from Greenpeace International on the failures of the French nuclear program.

March 2009: The High Cost of Nuclear Power: Why America Should Choose a Clean Energy Future over New Nuclear Reactors, a new report by Maryland PIRG Foundation.

March 2009: Can we go carbon-free, nuclear-free? A resounding Yes! says a new report prepared for Greenpeace by German Aerospace Center (German counterpart to NASA). Energy evolution: A sustainable USA concludes that a virtually carbon-free, nuclear-free energy future for the U.S. is possible by mid-century, at an acceptable economic cost. Download here.


www.nirs.org

[Jennicut]

34. Environmentalist James Lovelock thinks nukes are the way too go

and its too late for alternatives.
But many think he is a bit on the crazy side. From Wikipedia:

Lovelock has become concerned about the threat of global warming from the greenhouse effect. In 2004 he caused a media sensation when he broke with many fellow environmentalists by pronouncing that "only nuclear power can now halt global warming". In his view, nuclear energy is the only realistic alternative to fossil fuels that has the capacity to both fulfill the large scale energy needs of humankind while also reducing greenhouse emissions. He is an open member of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy.

In 2005, against the backdrop of renewed UK government interest in nuclear power, Lovelock again publicly announced his support for nuclear energy, stating, "I am a Green, and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy". Although these interventions in the public debate on nuclear power are recent, his views on it are longstanding. In his 1988 book The Ages of Gaia he states:

"I have never regarded nuclear radiation or nuclear power as anything other than a normal and inevitable part of the environment. Our prokaryotic forebears evolved on a planet-sized lump of fallout from a star-sized nuclear explosion, a supernova that synthesised the elements that go to make our planet and ourselves."

In The Revenge of Gaia (2006), where he puts forward the concept of sustainable retreat, Lovelock writes:

On 30 May 2006, Lovelock told the Australian Lateline television program: "Modern nuclear power stations are useless for making bombs". This view may be based on fact that plutonium-239 from the nuclear reactor of a power plant is contaminated with a significant amount of plutonium-240, complicating its use in nuclear weapons. It is easier to enrich uranium than to separate 240Pu from 239Pu to produce weapons-grade material, although even reactor-grade plutonium can in fact be used in weapons eg. dirty bombs Friends of the Earth Australia responded: "Lovelock's claim that nuclear power plants cannot be used for weapons production is false, irresponsible and dangerous. A typical nuclear power reactor produces about 300 kilograms of plutonium each year, enough for 30 nuclear weapons".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock

[Liberation Angel]

37. Yeah, Lovelock is irrational on this issue

And he is wrong on the facts and policy.

[scheming daemons]

39. How subjective of you

Lovelock would think you're irrational on this issue.

[Liberation Angel]

41. Yeah - If I had time I might try to deconstruct his BS

but I am beat down by this unrec thing

you win

thanks

[high density]

35. Germany? Don't they have nuclear plants next to highways there?

How do they survive? They must be glowing green!!! OMG!!!!!!!

[Liberation Angel]

38. Germany is decommissioning all its nukes and its goal is 100% renewable by 2050

unless the pronukers keep the madness going.

Lots of info on this lately

[high density]

42. That's great

But unlike you they have apparently realized there needs to be a transition period (i.e. forty years) between where we are today and the energy technology of tomorrow. There is no reason why the US cannot use nuclear as a bridge like Germany is doing.

[Liberation Angel]

46. There sure is a reason not to use nukes to bridge the gap

because every minute that they are operating they spew out radioactive effluents which kill people and cause spontaneous abortions and cancer.

see www.radiation.org

[high density]

47. And coal, oil, and Natgas plants spew out their own toxins

Then we have wind, which environmentalists slam for numerous reasons: Birds. The shadows. The noise. The view.

Then we have hydro, which environmentalists slam for hurting fish.

Then we have solar, which isn't a nationwide fix to the problem.

Sorry, but there are those of us who do not want to go back to the dark ages. Given the choice I'd rather have a nuclear plant in my back yard instead of a coal burning one. I think wind is the best of them all but the hurdles to building a wind farm seem nearly as high as for a nuclear plant when it comes to environmentalists throwing fits.

[Liberation Angel]

48. 100% renewables are coming. Nukes are dead. Face it

Anyone who opposes 100% renewables in our lifetime is beyond my help

[high density]

50. Nobody is making an argument opposing that.

It's just that some of us realize that the gap between where we are today and 100% renewable power includes nuclear for decades. The power supply in my area of Maine is 35% renewable (hydro) and that's significantly above the New England average of 6%. The remaining 65-94% of power has to come from somewhere in the meantime.

[Liberation Angel]

65. The researchers I know advocate converting nuke plants to natural gas

easy and effective and much much safer and cleaner and cost effective

[Liberation Angel]

40. Once again the unrecs win

pro-solar antinukes threads will never rise to the greatest page again

the pronukers win

[masuki bance]

54. Why does it matter? What significance does showing on the

"greatest" page bestow? Who tracks these things? Does anybody really care?

Please answer.

[scheming daemons]

60. Because your thread is shit.

Threads that are counter to the beliefs of the overwhelming majority of DUers don't belong on the Greatest Page.


This isn't "Anti-Nuke Underground". This is a site for Democrats. And the President, and the majority of Democrats, are ok with nuclear power.

[Liberation Angel]

64. nice intelligent thoughts babe

the majority of dems are ok with nuclear power?

bullshit.

But I can't prove it here when a small minority of pronukers can skew the threads with the unrec button

[avaistheone1]

72. I highly doubt the majority of democrats are for nuclear power.

Look at what is going on in Nevada. Those folks are turning their backs on nukes, especially with eveything that has happened at Yucca Mountain. I don't think of those Nevada folks as liberals either.

Let's see the Democrats are the war party now. The Republicans are the peace party.

The Democrats are the pro nuclear party. The Republicans are the green party.

That is too fucked up. I don't believe it for a minute.

[RollWithIt]

43. Nuclear, not nukes....

Dishonest word play....

[Liberation Angel]

45. Oh please, I grew up in a nuclear community and we all called reactors "nukes"

"Yeah, i work at the nuke plant, man." "wanna read my dosimeter? I ot dosed pretty good today from that goddamed nuke"

gimme a break

a good friend of mine died IN the reactor room.

[masuki bance]

55. What did he die from? nt

[spoony]

58. I'd like to know that, too. nt

[Liberation Angel]

63. There was no autopsy

he dropped dead.

It wasn't cancer. He was a political activist and his family suspected corporate foul play.

But my BELIEF is that the constant exposure to the radiation damaged his metabolic system and caused his organs to fail.

I can't prove it.

But he was a close friend, a mentor, and I loved him.

And he was a clean living guy with no genetic traits in his family that were implicated (his sibs all lived long lives)

Just an anecdote.

I have no doubt his work in the reactor room killed him. and/or was a majr contributing factor.

[avaistheone1]

73. We have been calling nuclear reactors nukes for decades.

I can take a picture of my "no nuke" political button that is well over 30 years old and post it if
you like. I just don't know where I would post them.

[Milspec]

56. Written by The Naib: Naib data

is lacking investment cost and returns.

[Liberation Angel]

62. The fact is that the study had this info

it is not in the blog entry but the people doing the owrk (which i heard about on BBC Radio yesterday) have the numbers.

It requires investment now but in the long run and even relatively short term the savings and recoupment of costs are substantial

[DatManFromNawlins]

67. Yeah, right, sure

Try to place those giant windmills or solar panels down here in Louisiana and then watch what happens to them when a hurricane rolls through. We do just fine with the nuclear plant. Even after Katrina and Gustav, I had power back within a week. Know why? Because the only thing that can get damaged in a storm like that in a nuke plant is the transmission lines.

[Liberation Angel]

70. put the lines underground -shovel ready stimulus

Anyway, most of what we are talking about is not that simplistic. It uses a variety of technologies. Wave power might be good in the gulf.

[Liberation Angel]

75. Kick for the morning crew (please vote in my poll in the next post)

see post # 74

[DatManFromNawlins]

77. We don't put transmission lines in the ground...

... because the water table is way too high. The land under our feet is a delta. Many, many subdivisions are actually built on former swamps which were filled in. Dig more than a couple feet and you hit water. And that still doesn't address the fact that we have something that works and nobody who lives in this area wants to change it because there's no rational need to do so.

And yeah, it really IS that simplistic. The only plants that will work around here are either natural gas, coal, or nuclear. Nothing else is worth a damn in the southeast section of the US. There are just too many variables which have gigantic ranges.

[Liberation Angel]

78. solar would work

natural gas too is not as bad imo

[Liberation Angel]

74. I Posted a poll nonukes or pronukes" Here's the link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8522636

[Liberation Angel]

81. PLEASE reply to my poll in the previous post

Let the truth set us free

[Odin2005]

82. Anti-nuke = pro-coal.

[Liberation Angel]

83. Baloney, that's a nuke industry straw man. No Coal, no nukes =100% renewables

its that simple

Up-thread i posted how its possible

if you want me to repost it I wil

[Grinchie]

88. I guess the possibility that a time reverse wave

That could trigger nuclear material is just Science-Fiction right?

Nothing like building more centralized, horrendously expensive, extremely toxic power plants to keep the little people in control.

God forbid they have individual Water Fuel Cells in every house, providing heat, electricity, Fuel, and distilled water on demand.

[Liberation Angel]

89. What is a time reverse wave?

Just asking and thanks for the post.