JUST SAY NO - DETAILS BELOW
I have been writing a series of articles on "Why Nuclear Energy Is Not the Solution to Global Warming."
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977118748
The first reason I write about is that nuclear energy is prohibitively expensive, unable to exist without substantial government subsidies since its inception.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977136205
Recently, the New York Times reported that nuclear industry lobbyists had "...told lawmakers and administration officials in recent weeks that the nuclear industry needs as much as $50 billion in loan guarantees over the next two years to finance a major expansion," resulting in "A one-sentence provision buried in the Senate’s recently passed energy bill, inserted without debate at the urging of the nuclear power industry, (that) could make builders of new nuclear plants eligible for tens of billions of dollars in government loan guarantees."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/washington/31nuclear.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
A new website is circulating a petition, demanding congress strike this provision from the senate's energy bill.
You can find more information on this important issue at:
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 14
That's the point, isn't it? Keep control of resources.
Check out the link to the petition at the end of the article.
Vote NO.
Insist on your representatives focusing on "clean" energy..SOLAR, WIND, WAVE.
No more excuses that you do not live where there is enough sunlight, etc etc etc.
Las Vegas was built on the idea of putting a water supply where it was purely desert. Do we lack the motivation - the pioneering spirit - that once made America the place where all great ideas come from?
With the current power lines, electricity can be sent anywhere in the world from virtually anywhere else...NO MORE EXCUSES people!
Multiple Exposures: A Chronicle of the Radiation Age
Eric. No excuses is the right idea. Renewables seem to be the choice of investors over nuclear ($56 billion in 2006), which is why the nuclear industry lobbyists are trying to secure $50 billion in federal loan guarantees from congress. It is shameful pork politics and nothing more.
BTW, solar is being done in Canada, so the idea that solar is not applicable in some regions doesn't wash.
Ottawa Releases $9 M for Solar Hot Water Pilot
I can buy it for $ 5000, but not the projected $ 25,000 - $ 50,000 of today's estimates. I saw something the other night on solar power and they showed someone in Africa charging a lantern using solar power, and then using the lantern after dark. In my work I've had the opportunity to travel to Africa several times - just 10 years ago people were struggling to put in phone systems - they failed time and time again - NOW there are cell phones, they just skipped the land lines completely - perhaps some of rural Africa will be like this - go straight to solar power, never be connected to a grid - could change life there.
I know the feeling! But there have been many indications that things are looking up. One such story is China plans $265 bln renewables spending by 2020, not widely publicized in the U.S., since the U.S. commitment is about $3 Billion through 2015.
Another story is
Lessons Learned on Display at Wal-Mart's Sustainability Summit
Appreciate the information. As I've stated previously, I tend to favor the development of nuclear and believe it is necessary for long term, clean, electricity. We've talked about this before and I know you don't agree. However, any subsidies I would question.
Loan guarantees are another matter and sometimes needed for a company to obtain the funds. The Loan guarantees cost the taxpayer nothing unless the borrower defaults. Then, I guess the taxpayers would own a portion of a nuclear plant.
The cost of nuclear power seems to be up for some debate. I've read of it being objectionable in and of itself while I've also read of it being cost effective and reasonable. I do know they are negotiating to build a plant in Idaho at this time. And, of course, we do have the INEL here in Idaho so nuclear things are not new to us. The proposed facility would be built by a French company.
Could wind and solar replace the needed nuclear? I don't know, I've read differing things on this. Some of it hinges on storage. Some of it hinges on the ability to procure the right of way to place these alternative acquisition facilities. That is to overcome the NIMBY factor. I will watch, with interest, the efforts of both nuclear and other alternative energies. There are still lots of public hearings, etc. to be conducted before anything is final. And the company interested must still believe that they can turn a profit.