Nuclear Key to Senate Climate Bill (?)

A three-day round of hearings over a companion bill to the cap-and-trade legislation passed in the House last May begins today in the Senate. The bill has been introduced by Democrat Barbara Boxer of California, head of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Massachusetts Senator John Kerry.

It seems the call for cap-and-trade climate change legislation could breathe new life into the US nuclear industry as Democrats make concessions to Republicans in order to get the bill passed before President Barak Obama heads to the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this December.

While speaking at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on Friday, President Obama urged the Senate to get the job done saying new energy and climate legislation is essential and should include “safe nuclear power” along with other renewable energies.

The House bill includes a cap-and-trade emissions reduction plan that mandates the use of renewable energy by utilities and allows polluters to buy and sell permits for emissions. It is expected to bring in billions of dollars and reduce carbon dioxide emissions 17 per cent by 2020 and over 80 per cent by 2050.

While most Senate Democrats support cap-and-trade legislation, getting Republicans to back it is a different story. It is this split along party lines that the nuclear industry stands to benefit from as Democrats make concessions in order to bring reluctant Republicans to the bargaining table.

Those in the nuclear power sector have been working hard to push the idea that nuclear energy is green energy because it doesn’t emit carbon dioxide emissions. But, of course, many environmentalists are still opposed to its inclusion under the clean energy umbrella.

via uraniuminvestingnews.com

This article in Uranium Investing News caught my eye this morning for two reasons:

1) I found this article's argument that cap-and-trade as an open door to nuclear power interesting, since no one act of government can grant permission for nuclear power unless people want it. I have told many pro-nuclear people that I am not against nuclear power over and over again. What I am against is the way these plants use power. The use of fossil fuels to generate energy for these plants as well as the uranium mining process that supplies the base energy for the plants both are not "clean." Both the fossil fuel use and uranium mining make nuclear power one of the least clean forms of alternative energy.

2) The words, "of course," which are found in the last paragraph, are rarely used today in journalism. Those two words, used together, are reminiscent of the royal "we," which is a pompous way to inform readers and listeners that the writer or speaker is 'above the crowd' with his or her knowledge.

"Of course," assumes that whatever the writer or speaker says is correct and without argument. In this day and age, no fact is absolutely grounded except the laws of physics, and some folks even try to defy those. In the case of this article (follow the link to read the rest of the story), "of course" is used to denigrate environmentalists by showing that "many" environmentalists do not know what they are talking about.

But, many environmentalists do know what they are talking about. They work hard to learn the facts and they would not be environmentalists if they did not care about what those facts meant to humans, to animals and to the current and future environment.

Using the words, "of couse," is a tool that many writers use to pull an argument in one direction. It is a biased and unnecessary tool to use when a writer has a strong argument that makes sense. The use of "of course" in this article is one reason why I wonder about the veracity of this argument. In the process, I need to consider the source, especially since this article is provided by a uranium investing newsletter.

PS - the headline? Nuclear is not key to the senate climate bill. The nuclear industry currently is not that powerful. It's more like the senate climate bill is key to the nuclear industry.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Radioactive Rabbit Poop Part Of Hanford Nuclear Reservation Cleanup (VIDEO)

The Hanford nuclear reservation in Washington state produced most of the plutonium our nation used from the the beginning of the atomic bomb through the 1980s. As one can imagine, this production also led to massive amounts of toxic waste. However, one of its sources is not part of the usual suspects.

The area is the focus of the largest environmental cleanup operation in the country right now, and that includes scrubbing all the rabbit feces because it is radioactive. The jackrabbits have taken quite a liking to the nuclear sludge, which contains a radioactive salt that they can't get enough of. According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer,

Jackrabbits routinely burrowed into those sites. They found the salt, liked it, and licked it. Later, they pooped it, leaving slightly radioactive scat all over the ground.

via huffingtonpost.com

Visit the link to watch the video. While this story has led to many jokes in the commentary, think for a moment about the implications of this event and how the rabbits are 1) food for prey, spreading that radioactive meat to other animals of prey, and; 2) how that scat might affect crops or native flora. While rabbits seem like small impact, they do proliferate wildly. Just ask the Australians about their ongoing rabbit problem.

My question is this: Is anyone conducting studies on how the radioactive waste is affecting the rabbits over the long term? Or, how that scat might affect the soil? Is this really a problem, if people avoid eating rabbit? Are rabbits one method to eliminate toxic waste, or at least mitigate it? Or, will PETA eat ME for lunch?

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Daniel Kessler: Boxer-Kerry Climate Bill Greenwashes Nuclear Power

If the Senators actually want to abate climate change rather than merely enriching nuclear corporations, we need solutions that are fast, safe and affordable, and that rules out nuclear power. The Congressional Budget Office has already determined that the risk of default on the nuclear loan guarantees congress will supply to the nuclear industry is well above 50%. Is it really the Senator's intent to support the next taxpayer bailout?

Mid American, a subsidiary of Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway, has already conducted their economic due diligence on a new nuclear plant and determined that
it does not make economic sense to build. If the "world's greatest investor" will not waste his resources on new nuclear power, perhaps the Senate should listen.

But Warren Buffet's corporation isn't the only one who thinks nuclear power is an economic non-starter. In April, Jon Wellinghoff, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, stated that new nuclear and coal plants are not needed. Renewable energy like wind & solar and improvements in energy efficiency will provide enough energy to meet our future energy demands. Wellinghoff concluded that nuclear and coal plants are too expensive.

In June, Moody's Investor Services released their analysis of new nuclear generation
and determined that nuclear power was a "bet the farm" risk. Why should the American taxpayer be expected to support such an investment?

The history of nuclear power plant cost overruns that led Forbes magazine to call nuclear power the "largest managerial disaster in business history" is repeating itself with the current generation of nuclear reactors. Last month, the French nuclear giant, Areva announced that they had lost 550 million euros, a 79% drop in their profits, due to construction delays with their reactor in Finland. According to Areva, the 3-billion euro nuclear plant has now accumulated 2.3 billion euros in estimated losses. Does the Senate really want to repeat this fiscal fiasco in the U.S.?

via huffingtonpost.com

The comments above contain the best arguments in this article, along with links. One point that is not included is the BBB (Better Business Bureau) when they declared in 1998 that the Nuclear Energy Institute's ads falsely claimed that nuclear reactors make power without polluting the air and water or damaging the environment. The BBB said that, "The nuclear industry should stop calling itself 'environmentally clean' and should stop saying it makes power 'without polluting the environment.'" The director of the division said such claims were "unsupportable." The bureau agreed with environmentalists that nuclear fuel is made using electricity from coal plants and that nuclear waste poses a threat to the public health and safety (http://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/10/business/media-business-advertising-better-business-bureau-says-nuclear-group-ran-false.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all%3Cbr%20/%3E )

Jim Riccio continues, "Nuclear power is a deadly and dangerous distraction from real solutions to climate change and our energy needs. Nuclear power is unsafe, uneconomical & unnecessary. Rather than greenwashing nuclear power, Senators Boxer and Kerry should cut the nuclear title from their bill and work to oppose any attempts to support this failed experiment."

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

150 AREVA Jobs Leaving Lynchburg | ABC 13

Lynchburg, VA - One of Lynchburg's largest employers has announced it is eliminating 150 jobs from a plant in the Hill city. 

The AREVA facility at Mount Athos plans to consolidate its nuclear fuel fabrication operations. They'll be moving it all to a plant in Richland, Washington.

These changes are set to begin in about six months. AREVA officials say the transition will begin next spring, so those affected will have time to make plans.

via wset.com

Areva, a French company, has had financial difficulties lately as have many other companies throughout the world. This particular plant produces fuel assemblies, which makes the parts used in nuclear facilities throughout the world. They are relocating to "increase efficiency and save operating cost."

This story basically reads that 300 jobs are moving out of Lynchburg as about 150 out of 300 jobs at the Lynchburg location are promised other positions within the company, whicle the other 150 employees could be relocated.

Richland, Washington - where the Lynchburg plant is relocating - is focused on nuclear energy since WWII, according to Wikipedia. "It has been the home of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory(PNNL) since 1965. One of the two Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory sites is located immediately north of Richland. Numerous smaller high technology business and expert consultants have grown up around the Richland technology center as well.

"Major employers include Battelle Memorial Institute operating PNNL, Bechtel National Inc. building a waste vitrification plant, Washington River Protection Solutions controlling operations of the nuclear waste tank farms, Washington Closure providing waste management and cleanup efforts including decontamination and demolition (D&D) of facilities along the Columbia River, CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company responsible for D&D of facilities on the site's Central Plateau, Duratek Federal Services, Inc. providing services to the U.S. government, Energy Northwest generating nuclear power at a nearby reactor facility, Areva creating nuclear fuel, Lockheed Martin Services, Inc. providing technology services and the U.S. Department of Energy which operates the Hanford Site."

Today, Hanford is the most contaminated nuclear site in the United States and is the focus of the nation's largest environmental cleanup.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Green forum for House candidates spurs talk about oil | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

Six candidates for the House of Delegates flashed their green credentials Wednesday night to about 100 residents at a forum on environmental issues. While they all showed love for the comeback of Lynnhaven River oysters, the sharpest ideological contrasts emerged on offshore drilling, a proposed uranium mine and global warming.

The forum, at Cape Henry Collegiate School, was sponsored by Lynnhaven River NOW, an environmental advocacy group. With the exception of few barbs traded at the end by Republican Del. Bob Purkey and his challenger, Peter Schmidt, there was little mudslinging.

via hamptonroads.com

Del. Joe Bouchard was involved in this forum, and he has spoken out before against uranium mining in Pittsylvania County. He made a puzzling remark in this article, stating that global warming is not a threat to the economy. One comment below this story may clear up that stance, as it appears that the paper may have misrepresented Bouchard's statement.

According to the commenter, Bouchard stated that "efforts to limit our contributions to global warming need not harm the economy, but iwll actually provide opportunities for economic growth through the development of renewable energy sources and green jobs."

At the forum, Bouchard also expressed sentiment against drilling offshore for oil. "The Navy has said we are absolutely opposed to drilling," said Bouchard, former commanding officer of Norfolk Naval Station and director of government sales for Cox Communications.

Chris Stolle, an obstetrician/gynecologist and vice president of medical affairs at Riverside Regional Medical Center who is facing a rematch with Bouchard to represent the 83rd District, responded, "Jobs are a darn good reason to drill offshore...The Navy is not a problem."

Stolle is brother to state Senator Ken Stolle.

The paper also stated:

Republicans at the forum said it's important to explore uranium mining at a site in Pittsylvania County.

"We've got to let the science play out," said Republican Ron Villanueva, a Beach councilman and defense contractor challenging Democrat Del. Bobby Mathieson, a retired police officer now working for a security firm. They're vying to represent the 21st District.

Mathieson and other Democrats said the risk of the proposed mine contaminating Lake Gaston, Virginia Beach's water supply, is too great.

"We spent too many years trying to get that water," he said.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

A Simple Statement On Nuclear Power and Climate Change - NIRS

We're getting a little tired hearing nuclear industry lobbyists and pro-nuclear politicians allege that environmentalists are now supporting nuclear power as a means of addressing the climate crisis. We know that's not true, and we're sure you do too. In fact, using nuclear power would be counterproductive at reducing carbon emissions. As Amory Lovins of Rocky Mountain Institute points out, "every dollar invested in nuclear expansion will worsen climate change by buying less solution per dollar...

via nirs.org

More than 11,000 people already have signed the NIRS statement on nuclear power and climate. It's endorsed by 675 organizations so far, from 48 states and Washington, DC and from every corner of the globe. NIRS is going to take this list of organizations and hand-deliver it to every Senator at the end of September, along with the thousands of postcards they've been collecting. And they want the list to be as complete as possible.

The statement itself is simple but in the context of the upcoming climate bill in the Senate, hard-hitting: "We do not support construction of new nuclear reactors as a means of addressing the climate crisis. Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power."

If you have not signed this petition, please do so now, and send invitations to your friends to sign it as well. Nuclear power is not renewable energy, nor is it clean. This greenwashing needs to stop, and only you can stop the movement toward this expensive and counterproductive measure to develop more nuclear power plants.

Go to: http://www.nirs.org/petition2/index.php

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Africa Joins the Nuclear-Free Club - Will this stop Africa being dumping site? | Environment | News - insidesomalia.org

Africa, the second-largest continent after Asia, has now become the world's largest nuclear-free zone comprising 53 countries with about a billion people. This means denuclearisation of one of the richest uranium producing regions.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the African Union (AU) announced mid-August that the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (NWFZ) Treaty has come into force.

This was after Burundi became the 28th African state to ratify the treat Jul. 15. Algeria and Burkina Faso were the first African countries to ratify it in 1998, two years after its signature.

Its entry comes amidst reports of intensive exploitation of uranium mines in Africa by European and Chinese-backed multinational corporations. It now ensures that the southern hemisphere is now free of nuclear weapons.

Under the treaty all parties are required to conclude comprehensive safeguards agreements with the IAEA. These agreements are equivalent to those required under the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

via insidesomalia.org

France depends entirely on uranium exploitation in Niger to operate its 58 nuclear power plants. Africa is also reported to be one of the largest nuclear, radioactive and toxic waste-dumping sites, together with Southeast Asia. Somalia is reported to be a major nuclear waste dumping site.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous