|
Nuclear energy: Clean Energy: The Nuclear Solution. The single greatest technological advance in recorded history was when we learned to make heat and electricity by converting mass to energy in nuclear reactors. This advance provided the safest, cleanest, and, except for hydropower, the most inexpensive and potentially most plentiful and useful energy in human history. But the environmentalist lobby doesn't like nuclear any more than it does coal-fired generation, mainly because it works! The alternatives they give are non-solutions. Cap-And-Trick: Contrary to Obama's assertions, our "addiction" to foreign oil no more caused the Deepwater Horizon oil spill than any addiction to nuclear energy caused the reactor accident at Three Mile Island. ... The irony is that if the incident at Three Mile Island had not similarly been exploited by environmentalists, we might not be so dependent on fossil fuels today. Regulatory barriers to the expansion of nuclear power ought to be removed. [Scroll down to page 25] Nuclear power is an important part of the nation's energy portfolio. Nuclear power plants generate approximately 20 percent of the electricity and 8.1 percent of all energy consumed in the U.S. There are 103 active nuclear power plants in the U.S. and an additional 339 plants worldwide. The U.S. has more nuclear power plants than any other nation, but some other nations rely more heavily on nuclear power than does the U.S. France, for example, relies on nuclear power for 78 percent of its electricity. U.S. on Sidelines of Global Nuclear Renaissance. [Scroll down to page 18] France already gets 80 percent of its power from nuclear and has the cheapest electricity in Europe, plus the second-lowest carbon emissions (behind Sweden, which derives half its electricity from nuclear power). France also sells $80 billion worth of electricity to the rest of Europe each year. A Future for Fusion? [Scroll down] Experimental fusion reactors release energy from light atoms by fusing their nuclei together to form heavier ones — as opposed to splitting atoms, the way today's commercial nuclear power stations do. Thus, fusion is a safer alternative to today's nuclear power plants, [Steven] Cowley says. The reaction only generates helium, an inert gas, as a byproduct. The walls that capture the heat of the reaction periodically need replacing, but they can be disposed of as low-level radioactive waste or recycled in fusion reactors, he says. Clean And Safe. More than 100 Americans have died in coal mines since 1984. Over that same period, not one American has died in a nuclear energy accident. In fact, no American has ever been killed in an atomic energy accident — and that includes any sailor in a Navy that makes extensive use of nuclear fission to power its fleet. The Economics of Nuclear Power: [Scroll down] In the case of Sweden, the low cost of nuclear and hydro power, and fairly smart regulation, made it possible to provide electricity to the industrial sector at perhaps the lowest price in the world. This being the case, nothing is more offbeat than hearing about the subsidies paid the nuclear sector. Cheap electricity meant the establishment of new enterprises, and just as important the expansion of existing firms. The tax income generated by these activities, and used for things like health care and education, more than compensated taxpayers (in the aggregate) for any subsidies that might have been dispensed by the government. An antithetical situation may prevail for wind and biofuels. Nuclear plants are the answer for energy shortage. For starters, producing nuclear-generated electricity is cheaper than any other major source of power. Granted, the cost of building new nuclear plants is high, but comparatively low nuclear fuel costs yield a significant savings over a plant's lifetime. According to the most recent data, the average cost of producing nuclear energy was 1.87 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared with 2.75 cents for coal, 8.09 cents for natural gas and 17.26 cents for petroleum. The Economics of Nuclear Power: New York State's denial of a renewal license for Entergy to continue operating the Indian Point nuclear power plant brings to light the obstacles impeding progress in the American nuclear industry. ...The non-competiveness of the U.S. market, hampered by layers of regulation, chokes progress and promise. Comparison of capital cost of nuclear and solar power. This paper compares the capital cost of three electricity generation technologies based on a simple analysis. The comparison is on the basis that the technologies can supply the National Electricity Market (NEM) demand without fossil fuel back up. ... The three technologies compared are: [1] Nuclear power; [2] Solar photo-voltaic with energy storage; and [3] Solar thermal with energy storage. It's Always "Earth Hour" in North Korea. [Electricity] is the difference between the Dark Age and the present age... but not for everyone. Much of Africa is in darkness. too. People who hate civilization and the humans who created it are welcome to live out in the wilderness or in some primitive backward country where they burn dung to cook their meals. If America doesn't start building more coal-fired plants, nuclear plants, and other generators of electricity, we too shall live in darkness when the sun goes down. Be warned, the present administration is doing everything possible to make that future happen. Nuclear energy must be part of the equation. Listen carefully in Washington, and almost everyone agrees that nuclear energy must be a part of our future domestic energy mix, and for good reason: Nuclear energy is the world's largest source of carbon-free energy, generating over 70 percent of our emission-free electricity here in the U.S. Nuclear energy is a clean, safe, reliable and domestic source of affordable energy that has created 15,000 new jobs in the last year. Power to the People. On a pound-for-pound basis, nuclear power is about a hundred million times as efficient as wind power. And isn't being "green" supposed to bring about the most efficient use of natural resources? Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies. Analysis shows wind and solar power are ridiculously expensive, compared to natural gas, coal and nuclear power. Nuclear Power: Wave Of The Past Or Future? The U.S. may soon get its first nuclear reactor in more than 30 years. UniStar Nuclear Energy — a joint venture between Baltimore-based Constellation Energy and the EDF Group — has proposed a new reactor for southern Maryland capable of generating 1,600 megawatts and powering 1.3 million homes twenty-four hours a day. To put this in context, the largest wind power installation in the world, the Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center in Texas, generates 735 megawatts — but only when it's windy. Unscientific American. [Scroll down slowly] Then there's the business of uranium enrichment. Environmentalists love to argue that nuclear is actually more carbon-intensive because uranium enrichment requires such huge amount of electricity. This is true in one respect. The country's only operating uranium enrichment plant in Paducah, Kentucky requires 2,000 MW of electricity — supplied by two full-fledged coal plants. But the plant employs World War II gas-diffusion technology. The United States Enrichment Corporation's new laser enrichment plant in Ohio would consume only 5 percent as much electricity — except that the Obama Administration has mysteriously rejected its application for a $2 billion loan guarantee and work has been temporarily suspended. Al Gore says nuclear power has limited role. Markets should determine the role of nuclear power in the future, environmental campaigner and former US vice-president Al Gore says. But he says nuclear power will only play a limited role in providing for the world's power needs because of the immense cost of building reactors. The Economic Value of Clean Air Compliance at Nuclear Power Plants. Nuclear energy is a reliable, low-cost, emission-free energy source. Nuclear energy provides affordable electricity for consumers. Nuclear energy is also a source of reliable, low-cost electricity that attracts and supports business and industry, creating jobs. And, nuclear energy is emission-free. These facts represents real economic value for states and regions that have nuclear power plants. The nation's nuclear power plants provide emission-free electricity to one out of every five homes and businesses. Bill requires doubling nuke use. To satisfy House Democrats' low-cost solution to global warming, Americans would have to double their reliance on nuclear energy by 2030 — a target the nuclear industry says is unlikely and that many environmentalists and Democrats dislike. That is the conclusion of a new Energy Information Administration report that looked at the House Democrats' global warming bill. Bunker Mentality Won't Cut Energy Bills. Clearly, we're shooting ourselves in the foot by excluding viable options. Challenges of meeting federal air quality standards in Georgia mean new coal-fired power plants are mission impossible, as clean, cheap and efficient as they have become. Campaigns to add the cleanest and most efficient of energy, nuclear energy, still elicit apocalyptic predictions, despite a near squeaky-clean record in countries such as France, with nearly 80 percent of electricity from nuclear power, and Japan, where nuclear energy is about one-third of the electricity supply. Testimony on the Future of Nuclear Power: For too long the nuclear industry has been a victim of scare tactics and outrageously false propaganda. The truth about nuclear power is that it provides a viable and safe means for satisfying our growing need for electricity. Continuous concerns over critical energy shortages in this country are sparking a renewed interest in nuclear power on the part of Americans who do not want to be left in the dark. Nuclear Energy in the World Today: One metric ton of nuclear fuel produces the energy equivalent of two to three million tons of fossil fuel. A 1,000-megawatt electric (MWe) coal-fired power plant releases about 100 times as much radioactivity into the environment as a comparable nuclear plant, because radioactive material occurs naturally in coal and is emitted as a byproduct of coal-fired electricity generation. Nuclear Power Is the Safest Energy Source, Studies Show. Today's nuclear power technology, by any and every measure, provides the best safety performance and lowest risk of workplace accidents among all commonly utilized power sources. Nuclear power plants are not at risk from terrorist attacks: They do not offer exponential damage opportunities and they are the most fortified installations in the nation. Over Time, Nuclear Power Skeptic Becomes Advocate. Initially a skeptic about radiation and nuclear power, Gwyneth Cravens spent nearly a decade immersing herself in these subjects for her new book, Power to Save the World. After visiting mines, experimental reactor laboratories, power plants, and remote waste sites, she changed her views about nuclear energy. You name it, she investigated it. Top 10 reasons to blame Democrats for soaring gasoline prices: Even the French, who sometimes seem to lack the backbone to stand up for anything other than soft cheese, faced down their environmentalists over the need for nuclear power. France now generates 79% of its electricity from nuclear plants, mitigating the need for imported oil. The French have so much cheap energy that France has become the world's largest exporter of electric power. Strangling the Energy Baby: A pollution-free alternative for new electricity generation is, of course, nuclear fission. While the cost of natural gas and oil will remain volatile, between 1990 and 1999 the cost of nuclear fuel decreased 46 percent. The environmentalists, of course, have little to say about nuclear power plants that these days provide some twenty percent of our electricity needs. Nuclear Power is Making a Worldwide Comeback. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration's "Annual Energy Outlook 2004," the demand for electricity in the United States will increase by 50 percent by 2025. At least 350,000 megawatts of new generating capacity — hundreds of new power plants — will be needed before then. Greenpeace is wrong — we must consider nuclear power. Until the past couple of years, the activists, with their zero-tolerance policy on nuclear energy, have succeeded in squelching any mention by the IPCC of using nuclear power to replace fossil fuels for electricity production. Burning fossil fuels for electricity accounts for 9.5 billion tonnes of global carbon dioxide emissions while nuclear power emits next to nothing. It has been apparent to many scientists and policymakers for years that this would be a logical path to follow. Support for Nuclear Power Is Growing. With natural gas prices rising rapidly and the price of crude oil hovering above $70 per gallon, nuclear power is emerging as an increasingly attractive source of energy to both the general public and some influential environmentalists. … According to [a March 2006] Gallup poll, fully 55 percent of Americans support expanding the use of nuclear energy. The embrace of nuclear power transcends political party affiliation, with 62 percent of Republicans and 51 percent of Democrats responding to the Gallup survey voicing their support for more nuclear energy. Dispelling the Myths About Nuclear Power. Nuclear energy is relatively clean, generating far less waste per unit of energy than any other major source and, based on the number of lives lost or people made ill, it is also far safer for human health. The benefits of nuclear energy are real, while the risks are mostly hypothetical. When decisions are made concerning future sources of electric power in the United States, facts, not fear, should be the basis for appraising the nuclear industry's place in the mix. Ten myths about nuclear power: The UK government is expected to announce tomorrow that it will give the green light to the building of new nuclear power stations in the UK — the first since the Sizewell 'B' station was completed in 1995. These are urgently needed to make up the shortfall in power supply as older nuclear stations are closed over the next few years. Yet the decision is bound to be controversial — not helped by widespread misinformation about nuclear power. Nuclear Energy and Environmental Preservation. Nuclear energy has perhaps the lowest impact on the environment — including air, land, water, and wildlife — of any energy source, because it does not emit harmful gases, isolates its waste from the environment, and requires less area to produce the same amount of electricity as other sources. Nuclear Power Wins Endorsement of Engineers. The 120,000-member American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) recently endorsed nuclear power as a safe and efficient source for supplying America's growing energy needs. Nuclear Energy in the World Today (Part Two): It is now completely absurd that anti-capitalist, anti-industry, anti-development, and in fact anti-people socialists have poisoned the minds of so much of the world against the cheapest, most abundant, and safest form of energy on the planet. It is truly amazing what devious minds can achieve in a world so filled with terror-prone people. Myths About Nuclear Energy: Nuclear, coal, gas: they all have the power to destroy. But of these three, one has gotten a bad rap. While it is business as usual for coal and gas, the widespread perception persists that nuclear energy is fraught with unique and terrifying danger. Say "nuclear" out loud, and people tend to think of mushroom clouds, radiation, and nuclear winter. Despite these fears, nuclear energy is clean, reliable, and safe — more so, in fact, than the alternatives, as an examination of the myths about nuclear energy reveals. Get real, environmentalists. In this era of seemingly permanent higher energy prices, environmentalists' blanket anti-fossil fuel, anti-nuclear power dogma must go. … That there were no U.S. nuclear plants built in the past 30 years, while the rest of the world had been rapidly doing so, has little to do with science. It has everything to do with D.C. politics that align interest groups over issues that are not their core concern. Environmentalists oppose every form of energy production. Strangling the Energy Baby: Let's start by understanding there are now three hundred million Americans. More people increase the need for more electricity. America currently must generate 15.43 trillion kilowatts of electricity and is in immediate need of more. This is why, following every winter storm, the very first piece of news reported is how many people are without electricity. Nuclear power is cleaner and safer: report. A return flight from Sydney to London and back will bring the same level of radiation exposure as living next to a nuclear power plant for 50 years. Contrary to common fears around the use of nuclear power, the Switkowski report into nuclear power points to a series of environmental benefits coming from modern nuclear reactors. Lessons from Chernobyl: In the "ghost town" of Pripyat, the external gamma dose rate measured by a Polish team in 2001 was 0.9 mSv per year, the same as in Warsaw and five times lower than in Grand Central Station in New York. The incidence of all cancers appears to be lower than expected in a similar, nonirradiated population. ... Three of the original thirteen Russian plutonium-production reactors continued to operate at the end of 2000 because, without them, one quarter of a million people would be without adequate heat during the Siberian winter. The Enemies of Nuclear Power: Nuclear power provides a cheap alternative to fossil-fuel-based sources of electricity. With comparable capital and operating costs, and a mere fraction of the fuel costs, it can provide electricity at 50 to 80 percent of the price of traditional sources. It is extremely reliable, and is by far the cleanest of any viable energy source currently known. Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste. The waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, fly ash — a by-product from burning coal for power — contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste. At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels. U.N. Revises Chernobyl Assessment. As of mid-2005, fewer than 50 deaths have been directly attributed to radiation from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster, with almost all the deaths being among highly exposed rescue workers, according to a new United Nations report. Blue-Ribbon Government Panel Lauds Nuclear Energy. The panel noted nuclear power has played a major role in electric power supply in the United States for 30 years. The U.S. has 103 nuclear power plants, more than any other country in the world. Those plants have supplied 20 percent of the nation's power over the past three decades — even as the country's energy demands have grown, and despite the fact no new plants have been ordered or built since 1973. Dispelling the Myths About Nuclear Power. Nuclear energy is relatively clean, generating far less waste per unit of energy than any other major source and, based on the number of lives lost or people made ill, it is also far safer for human health. The benefits of nuclear energy are real, while the risks are mostly hypothetical. Nuclear Power Is Safest Energy Source, Studies Show. Today's nuclear power technology, by any and every measure, provides the best safety performance and lowest risk of workplace accidents among all commonly utilized power sources. Nuclear power plants are not at risk from terrorist attacks: They do not offer exponential damage opportunities and they are the most fortified installations in the nation. It is safe to say neither the general public nor government officials understand many or any of these facts. Their lack of understanding is primarily the result of an extremely successful fear campaign waged by anti-nuclear activists 30 years ago. In addition, the news media has inaccurately reported accidents and mishaps at nuclear power plants. The Importance of Nuclear Energy to U.S. Energy Security: Nuclear energy provides reliable, low-cost baseload electricity to satisfy the increasing electricity demands of a digital economy, as well as peak demands caused by extreme weather conditions in winter and summer. Nuclear energy is a stabilizing factor in deregulated electricity markets because it is not affected by the price volatility experienced by other major energy sources, such as oil and natural gas. Exorcising the Demons of Chernobyl: Why would an energy-craving nation (the U.S.) that also demands a pristine environment put the kibosh on a limitless form of power (nuclear energy) that produces no air pollution and no emissions environmentalists claim cause global warming? Twenty Years After Chernobyl. April 26 marks the 20th anniversary of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Anti-nuclear activists are still trying to turn Chernobyl into a bigger disaster than it really was. Texas Will Host the First New U.S. Nuclear Plants Since the 1970s. Not a single nuclear power plant has been commissioned in the United States since 1978, but that is about to change as General Electric and Hitachi have announced a joint venture to build two nuclear power plants in Texas. The Texas project, announced in June with plants scheduled to begin operations in 2014, is expected to be the first in a new wave of economical and emissions-free nuclear power plants. Poll Shows the Public Favors Nuclear Power 2-to-1. Twice as many Americans support nuclear power as oppose it, according to a new poll by Bloomberg and the Los Angeles Times. ... The poll continues a trend of ever-increasing public support for nuclear power as a clean, economical, and environmentally friendly power source. Global warming fears have swayed many former opponents to support nuclear power. Greens 'aid destruction of planet'. Environmental groups are setting back the fight against global warming with misguided and irrational objections to nuclear power, according to Britain's leading thinker about the future. … While the anti-nuclear campaign is well-intentioned, it fundamentally misunderstands the safety of the latest generation of reactors and threatens to hold back a technology that could be critical to the world's future, [James Martin] said. Democrat Group Calls for More Nuclear Power. Nuclear power offers a safe and economical way to meet anticipated growth in American energy demand, according to an October 2006 report by the Progressive Policy Institute, a policy arm of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). The report, "A Progressive Energy Platform," praises nuclear power as a key weapon against asserted global climate change and air quality concerns. "Nuclear power holds great potential to be an integral part of a diversified energy portfolio for America," the report states. "It produces no greenhouse gas emissions, so it can help clean up the air and combat climate change." Al-Mighty Preacher Running Out of Power. [Al Gore] knows as well as anyone that the only form of energy that has no effect whatever on greenhouse gases is nuclear energy. And yet here the Prophet of Doom was bizarrely tentative. ... Since many companies don't even bother to try to build nuclear plants because of community opposition, why would he not embark upon an educational effort to explain to the American people the environmental benefit to be gained from a major program to build nuclear power plants? Why? I'll tell you why. Nuclear power is an ancient bugbear for the environmentalist left, and Gore is now their leader and sovereign. Nuclear Power Plant Withstands Major Earthquake. In a real-world test of nuclear power plant safety, the world's largest nuclear power plant, at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, Japan, took the brunt of a major earthquake on July 16, 2007 and passed the test admirably. Kentucky Bills Would End Moratorium on Nuclear Power Plant Construction. Though the idea is still controversial, many environmental groups are starting to believe nuclear power is a viable option for replacing or supplementing coal- and gas-powered energy plants. In a state like Kentucky, where 90 percent of electricity is generated from coal, environmental groups are especially receptive to nuclear power. Environmental Foolishness Has Made Nuclear Energy Radioactive. Nuclear power is the only available technology that is adequate, affordable, reliable, safe, and environmentally clean. If the nation wants to limit CO2 emissions, then it must turn to nuclear power. Though nuclear energy is expensive … those who criticize nuclear energy based solely on costs do not fully appreciate the broader context of energy policy, energy inflation, and rising construction costs in general. Shovel-Ready Nukes. Amazingly, with all the talk of shoveling money into infrastructure projects, no mention has been made of our energy needs, the jobs that can be created by expanding our energy infrastructure and the jobs that can be created with the additional energy provided. To be sure, vast sums are planned for alternative energy sources such as wind farms and solar plants, but like the current stimulus packages they will take too long to affect the economy in any significant way. Nuclear energy is a different matter. Productive stimulus: Fast-track nuclear power. The US is poised for a second wave of new nuke construction. The principal regulator, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, has been requested to schedule reviews for over 30 new reactors. The first new application showed up September, 2007, for two units in Texas with 24 others already in the hopper. Orders for long-lead hardware have been placed but actual site construction must await the myriad of government permits required. Nuclear power is true 'green' energy. Even though the link between climate change and fossil fuel use is still debated, Americans want "greener" energy. The energy sources favored by carbon-footprint-sensitive celebrities, such as wind power and ethanol, have gained the most attention so far — and the most subsidies. But if we're serious about security and the environment, we should be embracing something else: Nuclear energy. The Best Nuclear Option: Imagine a nuclear industry that can power America for decades using its own radioactive garbage, burning up the parts of today's reactor wastes that are the hardest to dispose of. Add technology that takes nuclear chaff, uranium that was mined and processed but was mostly unusable, and converts it to still more fuel. Support for Nuclear Energy Inches Up to New High. A majority of Americans have been supportive of the use of nuclear energy in the United States in recent years, but this year's Gallup Environment Poll finds new high levels of support, with 59% favoring its use, including 27% who strongly favor it. Why won't Obama utter the words "nuclear power"? President Barack Obama has made energy a chief priority of his administration, routinely discussing plans to move us beyond sources that emit carbon dioxide. But for some reason, he won't mention nuclear power, which can provide enormous volumes of energy without any pollution or CO2 emissions. ... Commercial nuclear power aims to power cities and improve the lives of multitudes. Moreover, there has never been a fatality or serious injury associated with the generation of commercial nuclear power in this country, including the notorious accident at Three Mile Island in 1979. Let's sit in the dark and freeze to death. We keep hearing about alternative energy. President Obama is calling for a Manhattan Project on alternative energy. We already had a Manhattan Project on alternative energy 65 years ago. We called it the Manhattan Project. Its research eventually led to the development of nuclear power plants. France gets 87 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. We stopped building nuclear power plants in the United States 30 years ago after a movie starring Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon scared everyone, and there was a non-fatal accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant. The coming nuclear renaissance: According to a new Gallup poll, 59 percent of Americans favor nuclear energy — a new high — and 27 percent say they strongly favor it. The attitude is bipartisan, with majorities of both Republicans and Democrats supporting nuclear power. Thirty years after Three Mile Island. No one was killed because of Three Mile Island. No one was even harmed. France has been building nuclear power plants for almost fifty years. France now generates almost all its electrical power from these plants and it exports more electricity than any other nation on Earth. There was no reason why America could not have done much of what France did — nothing, except, for the sick pseudo-science of the Left. Remember Three Mile Island? Forget It. [Scroll down] Administration defenders are correct that increasing the costs of putting carbon in the atmosphere will inevitably favor the nuclear industry. Assuming this is true, one would hope that it won't be hindered and overburdened by other costs of over-regulation. Three Mile Island: What Went Wrong and Why Today's Reactors Are Safe. By the time operators discovered what was happening, superheated and partially radioactive steam built up in auxiliary tanks, which operators then moved to waste tanks through compressors and pipes. The compressors leaked. The steam leakage released a radiation dose equivalent to that of a chest X-ray scan, about one-third of the radiation humans absorb in one year from naturally occurring background radiation. No damage to any person, animal, or plant was ever found. Kentucky Moves to Repeal Nuclear Moratorium. The Kentucky Senate has approved a bill to end a moratorium on new nuclear power facilities in the state. Senate Bill 13 would repeal a law requiring a permanent federal storage facility become operational before any new nuclear power plants can be built. Nuclear Energy Renaissance While the U.S. commercial reactor business faded decades ago, the U.S. did not abandon the nuclear sector altogether. Instead of building new plants, the U.S. commercial nuclear industry turned to making its existing plants run more efficiently and safer. So while other countries may lead in new plant construction, America excels in operating them. Moreover, the United States remains a leader in researching and developing nuclear technologies. America's vast national laboratory system and private sector expertise provides the resources and a scientific foundation for the U.S. to again compete as a global leader in the commercial nuclear world. Why the U.S. Needs More Nuclear Power: Your typical city dweller doesn't know just how much coal and uranium he burns each year. On Lake Shore Drive in Chicago — where the numbers are fairly representative of urban America as a whole — the answer is (roughly): four tons and a few ounces. In round numbers, tons of coal generate about half of the typical city's electric power; ounces of uranium, about 17 percent; natural gas and hydro take care of the rest. New York is a bit different: an apartment dweller on the Upper West Side substitutes two tons of oil (or the equivalent in natural gas) for Chicago's four tons of coal. Nuclear Energy Becomes Pivotal in Climate Debate. Nuclear energy, once vilified by environmentalists and facing a dim future, has become a pivotal bargaining chip as Senate Democrats hunt for Republican votes to pass climate legislation. The industry's long-standing campaign to rebrand itself as green is gaining footing as part of the effort to curtail greenhouse gases. The Economic Value of Clean Air Compliance at Nuclear Power Plants. Nuclear energy is a reliable, low-cost, emission-free energy source. Nuclear energy provides affordable electricity for consumers. Nuclear energy is also a source of reliable, low-cost electricity that attracts and supports business and industry, creating jobs. And, nuclear energy is emission-free. These facts represents real economic value for states and regions that have nuclear power plants. The nation's nuclear power plants provide emission-free electricity to one out of every five homes and businesses. Vermont Senate Votes to Close Nuclear Plant. In an unusual state foray into nuclear regulation, the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 Wednesday to block operation of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant after 2012, citing radioactive leaks, misstatements in testimony by plant officials and other problems. A few words about Uranium: Virginia Is Sitting on the Energy Mother Lode. Virginia is one of just four states that ban uranium mining. The ban was put in place in 1984, to calm fears that had been sparked by the partial meltdown of a nuclear reactor on Three Mile Island outside of Harrisburg, Pa. in 1979. ... [Henry Bowen and Walter Coles] are asking the state to determine whether mining uranium really is a hazard and, if not, to lift the ban. But they've run into a brick wall of environmental activists who raise the specter of nuclear contamination and who are determined to prevent scientific studies of the issue. Interior to halt uranium mining at Grand Canyon. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar will announce Monday that his department is temporarily barring the filing of new uranium mining claims on about 1 million acres near the Grand Canyon, an Obama administration official said. The land is being "segregated" for two years so that the department can study whether it should be permanently withdrawn from mining activity, said the official, who requested anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly on the matter. Uranium mining potential: What does uranium have in common with Arctic oil, offshore natural gas, coastal wind and cellulosic ethanol? They're all sources of energy that government bureaucrats have declared off-limits — needlessly. Just last month, Rep. Raul Grijalva, Arizona Democrat, declared an emergency situation to withdraw public lands adjacent to the Grand Canyon from uranium mining. A Tale of Two Reactors: A nuclear power plant is arguably the most extraordinary product of engineering and scientific know-how in the history of mankind. Once every 18 months or so, a truckload of metal is delivered to the nuclear plant. The metal is uranium, which has been processed to increase the proportion of the isotope known as Uranium-235. This fuel for the power plant is not dangerous and can be held in one's hands without risk. Only a few decades ago, its primary use was to impart an orange color to ceramics such as Fiestaware. When the metal is put in a precise geometric formation along with other materials and surrounded by water, it becomes a source of heat energy like man has never seen on this Earth. Let's Have Some Love for Nuclear Power. Because the public first became aware of nuclear energy through warfare, reactors have always been thought of as "silent bombs." But nuclear plants cannot explode. The fissionable isotope of uranium must be enriched to 90% to create a weapon. In a reactor it is only 3%. You could not blow up a nuclear reactor if you tried. How long will the world's uranium supplies last? If the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has accurately estimated the planet's economically accessible uranium resources, reactors could run more than 200 years at current rates of consumption. Most of the 2.8 trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity generated worldwide from nuclear power every year is produced in light-water reactors (LWRs) using low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel. About 10 metric tons of natural uranium go into producing a metric ton of LEU, which can then be used to generate about 400 million kilowatt-hours of electricity, so present-day reactors require about 70,000 metric tons of natural uranium a year. Piketon uranium facility's loan plan is a no-go. The Obama administration will not grant a $2 billion loan guarantee for a planned uranium-enrichment facility in Piketon, Ohio, causing the initiative to go into financial meltdown, the company and independent sources confirmed tonight [7/27/2009]. The U.S. Department of Energy's decision means "we are now forced to initiate steps to demobilize the project," said Elizabeth Stuckle, a spokeswoman for USEC. The Yucca Mountain storage facility: The people of Nevada don't object to the Yucca Mountain facility. Is Yucca Mountain a voter molehill? Polls consistently show that while most Nevadans oppose a Yucca nuclear storage site, they also don't consider it a top 10 or even top 25 issue. "Yucca Mountain has never had an impact on races here, but you would never know it from reading stories in the national media," said Las Vegas-based political consultant Ryan Erwin. Yucca Mountain Construction Involves Multiple Safeguards. We are a long way from storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but when we do, the facilities will look much like the underground bunker in a James Bond film, where a nefarious villain hides out while plotting to blow up the world. The facilities will be that hidden, remote, and reinforced. Even the above-ground facilities will be impressive. The buildings on the surface outside the main tunnel entrance at Yucca Mountain will house the facilities needed to prepare radioactive materials for disposal. Some of these buildings will be the size of sports arenas — 400 feet long and several stories high. Buildings in which nuclear materials are processed will be designed to withstand major earthquakes, tornadoes, and acts of sabotage. The official Yucca Mountain web site: Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. Yucca Mountain is the site of America's first planned repository for spent nuclear fuel rods and solidified high-level radioactive waste. The material would be stored in tunnels deep underground. A complex of buildings would receive, package, and prepare the material for disposal underground. Obama Budget Abandons Yucca Mountain. In a significant energy policy redirection, the Obama administration appears poised to pull the plug on funds for permanent nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. President Barack Obama's recently unveiled budget eliminates funding for the Yucca Mountain geologic repository, in spite of years of planning and almost $8 billion invested in the project. Yucca Mountain may be in limbo, but it is not the only option available for dealing with spent nuclear fuel. Not So Fast With Those Electric Cars. The administration recently killed the safest place on the planet to store what is erroneously called nuclear waste — at the nuclear repository that was being built at Yucca Mountain, Nev. This "waste" is in the form of spent fuel rods the French and others have safely stored and reprocessed. These rods still contain most of their original energy and reprocessing them makes nuclear power renewable as well as pollution-free. The French get 80% of their electricity from nukes, and nobody in Paris glows in the dark. They will have a place to plug in their electric cars, but right now we don't. The government is promoting solar and wind, which is fine if the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. Both have their own environmental drawbacks. Obama sounds death knell for nuclear power. Under the guise of cutting wasteful spending, President Obama is terminating support for the Yucca Mountain spent nuclear fuel repository in Nevada. While not unexpected, this development means that there will be no place to store nuclear waste, probably for decades, other than at temporary storage locations at each of the nation's nuclear power plants. Obama nukes nuclear storage. For more than two decades, the Congress, the president and the sprawling federal bureaucracy have worked to find a safe place to store the waste of nuclear reactors. Yucca Mountain, a remote formation in the deserts of Nevada, was the chosen site. Now President Obama, bowing to the demands of a fraction of anti-nuclear activists, has thrown 22 years of hard work up in the air. Penny-Wise And Megawatt Foolish. Among the Lilliputian cuts in the budget is the termination of the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev. Thus, a "shovel ready" renewable resource that emits no greenhouse gases is shoved aside. Keep Yucca Mountain project alive. While President Barack Obama's newly proposed budget would finally allow Nevada to rid itself of a nuclear waste dump planned to be buried in tunnels deep under Yucca Mountain, it would leave Illinois with the shaft. Obama's decision to zero out the Nevada nuclear waste repository is a betrayal of his Illinois constituents, forcing nuclear power plants here to continue to "temporarily" store more than 7,000 tons of dangerous, radioactive waste — more than any other state — in cooling ponds near rivers and Lake Michigan. Death Knell For Nuclear Power? Killing the storage facility for the spent fuel rods produced by the nation's nuclear power industry has long been a dream of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Obama. Last week, the Senate granted their wish, voting to deny the resources needed to complete a review necessary for Yucca Mountain to open. "This is a major victory for Nevada," said Reid, who is up for re-election next year. Yucca Mountain Decision Ignores Science. Seldom in history has such a small piece of real estate been subjected to such thorough and comprehensive [study]. And yet the selection of this site has been mired in political controversy from the very beginning. What has been ignored in the controversy are the extensive scientific analyses conducted in support of a proposed repository, along with both national and international peer reviews. The site has been studied exhaustively for 30 years now, and as much as $10 billion has been expended in scientific research. S.C. gov, officials blast Obama on Yucca Mtn. decision. Gov. Mark Sanford, two U.S. congressman and other Republicans blasted President Barack Obama this morning for abandoning a plan to send highly radioactive nuclear waste to a disposal site in Nevada — a move they said will leave the Palmetto State holding tons of high-level nuclear waste. Barack's Bi-Polar Nuclear Policy: President Barack Obama recently took drastic steps forward to carry through on his campaign promise to close the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility before it ever opens for business. His Department of Energy (DOE) successfully petitioned judges hearing license requests for the dump site to cancel the hearings. The final step in Obama's effort to kill the project for good will be to completely withdraw the DOE application for Yucca Mountain. Broader fight needed over Yucca Mountain decision. It's a curious turn of events that has individuals leading the charge against this sudden shift in the nation's nuclear waste policy away from Yucca Mountain. The uproar from electrical ratepayers, taxpayers, the nuclear industry and local and state officials ought to be deafening. If the decision stands, it means pouring more than $3 billion of the ratepayers' money down a rat hole without any rational explanation. Obama's other energy disaster: [President Obama] triggered a less publicized environmental mess with costs that rival BP's deep-water oil spill. The difference is that taxpayers — not some energy company — will foot the bill. The legal costs alone could top $50 billion. And if Democratic Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada loses his tough re-election bid come November, then, to borrow a phrase from an Oval Office operative, it will be money down the toilet. This mess began last year when Obama cut off funding for a legally mandated nuclear-waste depository beneath Yucca Mountain, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The project has been opposed for years by Reid, who helped rally Nevada to Obama's side in 2008. The president obviously would like to help his ally. Administration Cannot Drop Bid for Nuclear Waste Dump in Nevada, Panel Finds. In a setback for the Obama administration, a panel of judges at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ruled on Tuesday [6/29/2010] that the Energy Department could not withdraw its application to open a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Judges rule Obama can't close Yucca Mountain nuclear dump. Democratic Rep. John Spratt and Republican Rep. Joe Wilson don't agree on much, yet the South Carolina congressmen are cheering a new ruling that denied the bid by the U.S. Energy Department to withdraw its application for a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Lawmakers urge Energy Dept. to halt Yucca shutdown. Ninety-one lawmakers, mostly Republicans, are urging Energy Secretary Steven Chu to hold off on closing the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Obama aborted the recovery. [Scroll down] We could reduce our dependence on energy produced by unfriendly countries and slash the carbon footprint of our power-production industry if we built 50 or so nuclear power plants. In the process, we could regain our past position as a global leader in the field while creating jobs for engineers, architects, those in construction trades and power-plant operators. This is not happening on President Obama's watch for many reasons, including the cancellation of the Yucca Mountain storage facility for spent nuclear fuel. The administration's Yucca Mountain cancellation was held unlawful earlier this summer by a panel of judges; we'll see whether the Obama regime will let respect for the law stand in the way of its plans. Low-level radiation: Radiation and Human Health: Scientists have studied the effects of radiation for more than 100 years and know how to detect, monitor and control even the smallest amounts. In fact, more is known about the health effects of radiation than most other physical or chemical agents. Low-dose radiation fears are unfounded. A major aspect of the anti-nuclear policies that are espoused by our own government based on totally fraudulent fears. Our energy policy is based upon a half-century of deceit by U. S. advisory committees, such as the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation Committee and the National Council on Radiation Protection. Congress, EPA, and state officials use their advice to make policy, laws, and rules of operation. These committee members believe the myth that all ionizing radiation is harmful. It is not! They ignore abundant human and experimental animal data showing large and small doses of ionizing radiation (as most agents) produce opposite responses. Low-dose irradiation activates the immune system and has many health benefits. Trillion-Dollar Radiation Mistake? No one disputes that exposures to very high levels of radiation can cause health problems — data indicate, for example, that the Japanese atomic bomb survivors experienced slightly higher rates of cancer over the 50-plus years that they've been studied so far — but it's not clear at all that more typical, low-level radiation exposures pose any risk at all. Radiation 'hazards' found at U.S. Capitol, Library of Congress buildings. Radiation levels up to 65 times higher than U.S. Environmental Protection Agency safety standards were measured at the U.S. Capitol building and Library of Congress, reports a new study published by JunkScience.com. The researchers measured gamma radiation dose rates in a Capitol building hallway and outside the Thomas Jefferson Building as high as 30 microrems per hour. Highly exposed individuals could receive anywhere from 60 millirems to 260 millirems of gamma radiation per year depending on the exposure scenario. … The measured radiation dose rate is up to 550 percent higher than the dose rate from a nuclear power plant; [and] about 13,000 times higher than the average annual radiation dose from worldwide nuclear energy production. Afraid-iation? In July 2005, a National Academy of Sciences research panel ominously announced that there is no safe exposure to radiation. While this may sound intuitively plausible, the panel ignored a host of facts, including that 82 percent of the average person's exposure to ionizing radiation is natural and unavoidable — coming at low levels from the universe and the ground — and that, other than slightly higher cancer rates among the Japanese atomic bomb survivors, there are no data to support the idea that typical exposures are dangerous. Malice in Obamaland. The [nuclear energy] industry has been hampered by reams of regulatory red tape demanded by environmentalists in the wake of the 1979 Three Mile Island incident, which effectively ended new plant construction. ... Mr. Obama's budget proposal also zeroed out funding for Nevada's Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, leaving America with no long-term solution for storing spent nuclear fuel. Without a storage solution, there is no way forward for nuclear power. Weighing these two contradictory moves, the president appears to be urging the industry onward along the familiar path to nowhere. Irradiated foods: There's No Meat to Anti-Food Irradiation Claims. Irradiation is the only known method to eliminate completely a potentially deadly strain of E.coli bacteria in raw meat and can also significantly reduce levels of listeria, salmonella and campylobacter bacteria on raw products. Call me insensitive towards our bacterial brethren, but if it's them or us I say: "Kill 'em all!" Food Irradiation: A Healthy Secret. Irradiation of food, which is highly effective in killing harmful organisms, is relatively new and widely misunderstood, and it has been flagrantly misrepresented in the media. … Irradiation kills salmonella on poultry, trichina in pork, hazardous organisms in beef and seafood, and insects and larvae in food. It provides an alternative to certain chemicals and pesticides to reduce spoilage of fruits and vegetables after harvest. In addition, irradiation allows some fruits and vegetables to ripen more fully before harvest, thus enhancing flavor. Salads To Get New Dressing — Radiation. Consumers worried about salad safety may soon be able to buy fresh spinach and iceberg lettuce zapped with just enough radiation to kill E. coli and a few other germs. Irradiation: A Winning Recipe for Wholesome Beef. Irradiation uses gamma rays from either radioactive material or machines to kill bacteria and other organisms. Irradiated food is no more radioactive than your luggage is after it goes through the airport Food Safety Held Hostage: Why have people been allowed to sicken and die? Why has food gone needlessly to rot? The answer is a cautionary tale of what happens when technophobia and crackpot "consumer advocacy" reign over science. Each year, about 9,000 Americans die of food poisoning. Nobody knows exactly how many of these deaths can be prevented with irradiation. But it's safe to say that three of the biggest killers — campylobacter, salmonella and E.coli — are readily destroyed by irradiation. What is safe, what isn't? Although more than 50 years of scientific research has established food irradiation has little or no effect on flavor, and that it is safe and highly effective, the Food and Drug Administation's gradual approval of new irradiation applications has been opposed at every turn by antinuclear activists. Contrary to their claims, irradiated foods contain no byproducts unique to the process, and the process is hazardous neither to workers nor to environs of treatment plants. The safe spinach solution: Nuke it. Authorities have traced the contaminated spinach that has killed as many as three people and sickened at least 173 to a few counties in California's Salinas Valley, but let's don't stop the investigative work too soon. There's a lesson to be learned here, an important one about the dangers of superstitious, leftist twaddle, and the threat it poses to human life. So let's zero in on the anti-corporate, conspiracy-minded, Nader-formed group, Public Citizen, which never quits yelping about the public good while simultaneously betraying it, and let's focus on its opposition to irradiation as an extraordinary means of saving literally tens of thousands of lives lost to food-borne illness over the years. Irradiating Lettuce Will Save Kids' Lives. For years, our Center has been demanding irradiation for spinach, lettuce, and other high-risk produce — to kill the food-borne bacteria that present a last big preventable risk in our food supply. On August 22, the Food and Drug Administration granted our plea. FDA permission to irradiate produce is the biggest step forward in U.S. food safety since irradiation was approved for meat (read hamburger) in 1990. That followed dozens of needless "burger deaths" due to the rare-but-vicious E. coli O157 bacteria. Radon: Time To Overthrow the Radonistas: Nobody questions that uranium miners breathing huge amounts of radon suffer extraordinary rates of lung cancer. But we also know that the body has multilayered defenses for throwing off minor assaults. Do You Need to Monitor Your Home for Radon Gas? I've never known or heard of anyone who came down with lung cancer due to radon gas. When non-smokers develop lung cancer, health authorities don't go running down to the deceased person's home to check for radon gas exposure. There is no Radon Link to Cancer. The radon scare, which peaked in 1988-1990, was generated by a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimate that 8,000 to 43,000 Americans die from lung cancer each year from exposure in buildings to air polluted by radon. Several prominent scientists took issue with the EPA estimates. Anthony Nero, an expert on indoor air pollution and a scientist at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in California, reported, "Everything is exaggerated — from the number of homes at risk to the individual's risk from radon. I feel that, in this matter, the public has been led to worry about things of minor concern." The War on Radon: Few Join Up. The EPA has decided that radon is the number one environmental health risk in America: worse than pesticides and worse than hazardous waste. Judging from the panic caused by environmental scares such as Alar on apples and chemicals from hazardous waste sites, one might expect the nation's "number one risk" to incite near hysteria. Yet radon has failed to instill widespread fear in the public mind. Radon and the LNT Fallacy: The National Safety Council is a tax-exempt, nongovernmental agency, which describes itself as a consensus-builder. "We do not have the authority to legislate or regulate. However, we can influence public opinions, attitudes, and behavior" — and it does so with tax dollars. Its Environmental Health Center produces the Climate Change Update (heavily slanted toward global warming advocates) under a cooperative agreement with the EPA and does public outreach on air quality issues (such as radon) under an EPA grant. The Radon Scare: When Scientists Oppose Science. Once upon a time scientists, with few exceptions, could be relied upon to help staunch the never-ending flow of scares-of-the-week emanating from the media and advocacy groups. But more and more, they're becoming part of the problem. The pressure to publish a positive link between whatever's being scrutinized and disease has simply become too intense. EPA Refuses to Face the Facts on Radon Risks. The EPA's claim that radon levels in homes are carcinogenic, like so many of their assertions concerning carcinogenicity, are based on what's called a linear, no-threshold extrapolation. This theory says that because a substance […] causes tumors in lab animals at doses hundreds of thousands of times greater than the doses that humans could possibly absorb, that humans are nonetheless at risk of developing tumors from these chemicals. But radon may turn out to provide the best evidence that this assumption, beyond being scientifically unproven, is demonstrably false. Granite Countertops A Health Threat? If you have granite countertops in your home, you might consider testing them for the amounts of radon gas they give off, experts say, due to the potential that those amounts are above levels considered safe. But marble manufacturers say flat-out that, "Radiation in granite is not dangerous." New radon limits could cost Sweden billions. The WHO recommended on Monday [9/28/2009] that limits on the radioactive element radon in residential buildings should be cut from a current 1,000 to 100 becquerel per cubic metre (Bq/m3). ... The problem is that the change would cost the Swedish society more than 25 billion kronor ($3.6 billion) to decontaminate all of the residential property in Sweden which have a radon reading in excess of the new recommendation, according to Michael Ressner. Back to Environmental False Alarms Back to the Environmental Issues Page Jump over to the Global Warming Page Back to the Home page 
|
