Federal loan guarantees for more nuclear reactors

[Lee]

If you are against federal loan guarantees for the construction of nuclear reactors, then urge your Representative to support the Visclosky/Tierney Amendment which would remove section 9202 from the Energy Bill.
Cost estimates for nuclear reactor construction run to 50 billion dollars or more of the tax-payers money. As we know, there is no current way to safely store, transport, or operate nuclear plants.
The production of radioactive fuels adds to the carbon dioxide emissions, and therefore the operation of nuclear plants is not a solution to the "global warming problem."
More details about federal loan guarantees for nuclear-plant construction can be obtained by going to the Nuclear Information Resource Service at nirs.org

[Zeebadee]

The production of radioactive fuels adds to the carbon dioxide emissions, and therefore the operation of nuclear plants is not a solution to the "global warming problem."
More details about federal loan guarantees for nuclear-plant construction can be obtained by going to the Nuclear Information Resource Service at nirs.org

Just a little info for balance....

"Nuclear generation does not directly produce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury or other pollutants associated with the combustion of fossil fuels (pollution from fossil fuels is blamed for many deaths each year in the U.S. alone). It also does not directly produce carbon dioxide, which has led some environmentalists to advocate increased reliance on nuclear energy as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (which contribute to global warming). Non-radioactive water vapor is the significant operating emission from nuclear power plants.

According to a 2007 story broadcast on 60 Minutes, nuclear power gives France the cleanest air of any industrialized country, and the cheapest electricity in all of Europe.

<snip>

In countries with nuclear power, radioactive wastes comprise less than 1% of total industrial toxic wastes, which remain hazardous indefinitely unless they decompose or are treated so that they are less toxic or, ideally, completely non-toxic. Overall, nuclear power produces far less waste material than fossil-fuel based power plants. Coal-burning plants are particularly noted for producing large amounts of toxic and mildly radioactive ash due to concentrating naturally occurring metals and radioactive material from the coal. Contrary to popular belief, coal power actually results in more radioactive waste being released into the environment than nuclear power."
Nuclear power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Netopalis]

Also, it should be noted that any radioactive material that needs to be stored after it can no longer be used can safely be stored in the Yucca Mountains in Texas - they have an excellent storage facility there, with numerous failsafes - it's probably safer there than at Fort Knox.

[The Dunedan]

Two further factors should be considered:

1: Pebble Bed Reactors, now in use in China and Europe, which use spherical reaction masses instead of fuel rods, are physically incapable of melting down. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are simply not physically possible with a Pebble Bed Reactor.

2: If the Luddites would kindly get out of the way and permit such, the reconstitution of spent nuclear fuel would drastically cut down on toxic and radioactive waste and would also extend the nation's current nuclear fuel supply considerably.

Folks, the reason nuke power is as unsafe and toxic as it is is very simple: the technology of the US nuke-power industry is stuck in the 70s. It's been stuck there ever since ill-informed neo-Luddites within the environmental movement lobbied laws and regs into existance which prevented the construction of new reactors and banned fuel reconstitution. Meanwhile, France is generating 70% of their energy from nuke plants, and the rest of Europe is straining to catch up. The French, Russians, and Japanese also make substantial sums of money by reconstituting and reselling (or reusing) spent fuel. The US meanwhile, which -should- have been leading the way on this, is a laughingstock.

[Lee]

The mining of uranium and its enrichment do cause green-house-gas emission..... But that is not the point...... A large-scale deployment of nuclear-power plants around the world is both impractical and dangerous.
A 2003 study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimates a worldwide nuclear generating capacity of 1000 GW (gigawatts) by the year 2050. This would double the volume of radioactive waste that is now generated, and according to Brice Smith (author of Insurmountable Risks) a new storage facility with the capacity for 70,000 metric tons of radioactive waste would need to be constructed every five and one-half years ( see ieer.org).

[Lee]

IEER is an acronym for the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. It is headed by Arjun Makhijani who has a PHD in Engineering from the University of California at Berkley.
Here is his June 6, 2006 comment about the Brice Smith publication:

"The analysis in Insurmountable Risks provides rich detail... about the risks associated with the vast scale of nuclear power deployment that will be required for it to make a significant impact on the electricity sector alone not to speak of the entire energy sector. The requirements include a large number of enrichment plants, .... many nuclear waste repositories, even if reprocessing is adopted and (very likely) the adoption of reprocessing involving the separation of weapons usable materials....."
Later on Dr. Makhijani goes on to say: ".... Yet, the U.S. is promoting nuclear power and creating massive subsidies for it partly under the banner of reducing carbon dioxide emissions......... But it is irrational to incur the proliferation and accident risks of nuclear power when safer alternatives are clearly available at the same cost....... we need (an energy policy) that pays serious attention to the problems of security and that also has a reasonable cost, reliability, and environmental sanity as its goals."

[Lee]

Again, if the reader believes in the dangers of nuclear-generating power plants, I would urge him/her to contact their respective U.S. Representatives urging passage of the Visclosky/Tierney Amendment.
Obviously, there are many who believe that the federal government should provide loan guarantees for the construction of nuclear power plants as will be the case if this Energy Bill is not changed.
Thanks for any action that you might take.

[The Decider]

Meanwhile, France is generating 70% of their energy from nuke plants, and the rest of Europe is straining to catch up.

Let's examine more closely this French Nuclear Energy Utopia. France's 57 light water reactors discharge 1200 tons of spent fuel every year. Within that waste sits 12 tons of plutonium, some of which gets reprocessed as Mixed Oxide Fuel for reuse in the reactors. But the total quantity of plutonium is far greater than France's consumption. Even with supposedly safe storage facilities, the 56 geographically dispersed French nuclear reactors must find ways of getting the toxic stuff to the sites. That means most of the plutonium in powder oxide form is transported across France every year. It's a security nightmare if nothing else.

Furthermore, the reprocessing of spent fuel is far from economical. The utility company must pay for the reprocessing, transportation, and storage costs. On-site storage is politically unpalatable since few people want a nuclear waste dump anywhere near their neighborhoods. Having a nuclear reactor nearby is risk enough in this era of terrorism.

Reprocessing also contributes to CO2 emissions that contribute to global warming.

France does have some of the cheapest kilowatt hour prices in Europe, but the government also subsidies some of the storage and transportation costs of nuclear waste. The price is artificially low. On top of that, French reactors are not held 100% responsible for any accident, thus eliminating higher insurance premiums and further subsidizing the lower energy rates.

As for the "safer" pebble bed reactors, we should consider a few facts. Scientists disagree on the "fire-proof" materials used in such reactors. That means fire-safety measures must be in place. The "pebbles" themselves, about the size of a tennis ball, make transportation easier for employees....and terrorists interesting in obtaining material for "dirty bombs." Worse still, each pebble must have the EXACT same shape, and we're talking about millions of pebbles. What are the consequences of a one or more misshaped pebbles? What about the degradation of pebbles over time? Knowing that some private companies look for cost saving measures (ie reduced inspections), we can't be sure of 100% vigilance over such a dangerous energy material. And finally, pebble bed reactors produce far more waste than conventional reactors with all the inherent problems that go with it.

Conservation and other alternative energy sources are still the best way to address our energy needs. One need not be a Luddite hater of technology and progress to take that position.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/Bur...processing.pdf

[Lee]

The Energy Bill is now in Conference Committee.
Congress has adjourned until after Labor Day.
As it stands right now, there is no limit on the amount of money that the Department of Energy can spend for the construction of nuclear-power plants through federal loan guarantees.
The individual has an opportunity to express opposition to this aspect of our national energy policy, and I strongly hope that you contact those who plan to foster this nightmare on our country.

Thanks Lee.

[Lee]

At the radioactive-waste storage facility in Hanford, Washington, 500,000 gallons of high-level radioactive waste have leaked into the soil, the Columbia River and the Atlantic Ocean. Soil and water contamination are extensive at Fernald (Ohio), Hanford (Washington), Idaho Falls, Lawrence Livermore (Cal.) Oak Ridge (Tenn.) , and Rocky Flats (Colo.).
Congressional estimates for cleanup of radioactive waste storage sites range from 130 to 300 billion dollars ( See Burying Uncertainty and the Case against Geological Disposal of Nuclear Waste by Kristin Sharon Shrader- Frechette).