Our unnecessary nuclear futureby Amanda Witherell
photo of Diablo Canyon nuke plants courtesy of PG&E's Jim Zimmerlin
Sigh. Just when you're starting to think something productive might occur in the legislature, enter the monkey wrench. A recently released study outlines exactly how we could be planning for an energy future free of nuclear and coal. If only our leaders would quit pandering to industry and adopt such a plan, but instead it looks like the nuclear industry has quietly tucked a provision into the new energy bill that would provide billions of dollars of loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants.
The nuclear power industry has long argued that new plants aren't feasible unless these subsidies are granted. They scored them in the 2005 energy bill and despite the overwhelming evidence that more renewable energy sources are needed, looks like the 2007 bill will allocate even more coin toward new nuclear power plants. A lot of bitching has always accompanied the tax credits and subsidies granted to renewable power sources like solar and wind, with a lot of scorn that these industries are too expensive to stand on their own and therefore can’t serve our energy needs. But nuclear obviously can't either and has a proven track record of cost overruns.
And a dangerous new nuclear era is dawning, with advocates claiming nuclear power plants are "emissions-free" and will save us from global warming. To paraphrase one of my trusted sources, "That's like saying you don't fart and ignoring the giant crap you're leaving behind."
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (2)
Lack of an answer what to do with the waste did't slow it much.
Mining? Transport? Weapons proliferation? No one seemed to know or care about these concerns.
Just when we thought nuclear power would finally be stopped by economics, deregulation passed 10 years ago and utility holding companies got billions in reimbursements for cost overruns building reactors.
Then global warming came along and gave the "carbonless energy source" a new lease on life. Check out http://gcep.stanford.edu/ for the Stanford connection to support for nuclear power as an answer to global warming.
They also have great hopes for a genetically modified bacteria's help producing biofuels.
This bill seems far from a done deal. I am told by Beltway insiders that the Price-Anderson nuclear insurance subsidy is too much a sacred cow to be touched, but support for loan guarantees appears softer.
Maybe if enough of us ask, Congress will do the right thing...
Fall-back plan: Form an affinity group.
Posted by Don Eichelberger | August 1, 2007 09:31 PM
The nuclear renaissance reminds me of the state lotteries; offering riches cheaply gained while others, over the long run, pay for these riches resulting from their addiction to fantasy!
Yet somehow, contrary to the conservative values of thrift and profit, gambling has become a common means for states to gain revenues for social programs that alleviate the problems caused by gambling.
Is our addiction to energy going to cause similar issues as in gambling? Common sense and the nuclear industry propaganda says that the risk has been reduced to acceptable levels and to oppose nuclear energy is to be un-American.
Nothing is further from the truth...we don't need nuclear energy, we need conservation and more research into solar and wind energy sources. We need consumer-owned utilities to keep the prices low enough for the lower income classes to be able to afford current energy sources. Then does this mean I advocate socialism? No, I advocate rational thought, nothing more.
I don't agree with the grand delusion of our current nuclear energy policy as popularized in the search for profit!
And in the long run, the nuclear energy programs we supply for other countries will cause us to lose our military deterrence, hence causing more conflict over these very resources sought for profit!
Posted by igmuska | October 3, 2007 06:59 PM