Environment
Japan will build no new nuclear reactors. It's a huge body blow to the global industry, and could mark a major turning point in the future of energy.
Says Prime Minister Naoto Kan: "We need to start from scratch… and do more to promote renewables."
Wind power alone could---and now probably will---replace 40 nukes in Japan.
The United States must join them. Axing the $36 billion currently stuck in the 2012 federal budget for loan guarantees to build new reactors could do the trick.
Wind potential alone between the Mississippi and the Rockies could produce 300% of the nation's electricity. That doesn't include solar, geothermal, ocean thermal, sustainable bio-fuels and the many more renewable sources poised to re-shape the Amercian energy future once the prospect of new nukes is discarded.
Japan was set to build 14 new nukes before Fukushima. Six of Japan's total of 55 reactors were shut by the earthquake and tsunami. Three at Kashiwazaki remain shut from the seven that were hit by an earthquake less than five years ago. Kan wants three more closed at Hamaoka, also in an earthquake/tsunami zone.
Says Prime Minister Naoto Kan: "We need to start from scratch… and do more to promote renewables."
Wind power alone could---and now probably will---replace 40 nukes in Japan.
The United States must join them. Axing the $36 billion currently stuck in the 2012 federal budget for loan guarantees to build new reactors could do the trick.
Wind potential alone between the Mississippi and the Rockies could produce 300% of the nation's electricity. That doesn't include solar, geothermal, ocean thermal, sustainable bio-fuels and the many more renewable sources poised to re-shape the Amercian energy future once the prospect of new nukes is discarded.
Japan was set to build 14 new nukes before Fukushima. Six of Japan's total of 55 reactors were shut by the earthquake and tsunami. Three at Kashiwazaki remain shut from the seven that were hit by an earthquake less than five years ago. Kan wants three more closed at Hamaoka, also in an earthquake/tsunami zone.
NRC Licensing Board Recognizes Standing, Grants Hearing on Renewable Alternatives and Severe Accident Risks
Toledo, Ohio--On March 1st in a Port Clinton courtroom, the resources of First Energy, one of the largest power companies in the country, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) were arrayed against four citizen groups. First Energy had approximately a dozen lawyers and support staff; the NRC had about half a dozen, while the citizen groups had one lawyer who was a volunteer. It was clearly a case of David versus Goliath, and, in the first round anyway, David won a split decision.
At issue is First Energy's application to extend the operation of the Davis-Besse nuclear power plant twenty years beyond its designed lifespan, from 2017 to 2037. The four citizen groups are: Beyond Nuclear, a Washington D.C. based non-profit; the Ohio Green Party; Don't Waste Michigan; and the Citizens' Environment Alliance of Southwest Ontario. They claim that the plant, which already has a long history of accidents, leaks, and near misses can't be safely run for another twenty years, and that wind and solar power are much more practical alternatives.
Toledo, Ohio--On March 1st in a Port Clinton courtroom, the resources of First Energy, one of the largest power companies in the country, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) were arrayed against four citizen groups. First Energy had approximately a dozen lawyers and support staff; the NRC had about half a dozen, while the citizen groups had one lawyer who was a volunteer. It was clearly a case of David versus Goliath, and, in the first round anyway, David won a split decision.
At issue is First Energy's application to extend the operation of the Davis-Besse nuclear power plant twenty years beyond its designed lifespan, from 2017 to 2037. The four citizen groups are: Beyond Nuclear, a Washington D.C. based non-profit; the Ohio Green Party; Don't Waste Michigan; and the Citizens' Environment Alliance of Southwest Ontario. They claim that the plant, which already has a long history of accidents, leaks, and near misses can't be safely run for another twenty years, and that wind and solar power are much more practical alternatives.
In the wake of the apocalyptic nightmare at Fukushima, the multi-trillion-dollar global nuclear power industry is looking over the abyss at a long-overdue extinction.
But the issue is far from decided. Japan's horrifying catastrophe has sent the industry's spin machine into overdrive. Hell-bent on minimizing the dangers of this unprecedented disaster, we've been shown the script of what reactor-backers are willing to say and do to save themselves.
It is not a pretty picture. It focuses on the assertion that there are safe doses of radiation, and that atomic energy has harmed few, if any. Three Mile Island "hurt no one." There were few casualties at Chernobyl. And Fukushima's long-term damage will be minimal.
Atomic apologists argue that only nuclear power can fill our long-term "base load," that renewables are of no real consequence, and our choice is between more nukes and more coal.
Yet the nuclear industry faces significant hurdles in cost and construction lead time, two inescapable factors that are on the brink of killing atomic electricity-generation.
But the issue is far from decided. Japan's horrifying catastrophe has sent the industry's spin machine into overdrive. Hell-bent on minimizing the dangers of this unprecedented disaster, we've been shown the script of what reactor-backers are willing to say and do to save themselves.
It is not a pretty picture. It focuses on the assertion that there are safe doses of radiation, and that atomic energy has harmed few, if any. Three Mile Island "hurt no one." There were few casualties at Chernobyl. And Fukushima's long-term damage will be minimal.
Atomic apologists argue that only nuclear power can fill our long-term "base load," that renewables are of no real consequence, and our choice is between more nukes and more coal.
Yet the nuclear industry faces significant hurdles in cost and construction lead time, two inescapable factors that are on the brink of killing atomic electricity-generation.
Dear President Obama,
Why Atomic Energy Should Not be Used to Generate Electricity:
The plants are inherently unsafe
· Most of the current plants are operating beyond their age limit.
· Failure to inspect and maintain them.
· Operators are sometimes not reporting safety hazards to NRC.
· Human error puts them at risk.
· When there is an accident, there is risk of injury and death to a large numbers of people, areas becoming uninhabitable and food becoming unsafe to eat.
· Since insurance companies are unwilling to insure them, government assumes the liability.
Problems with spent fuel (atomic waste)
· It must be kept under water to cool it and protect personnel from radiation.
· There is no safe way to dispose of it after it can be taken out of the water. It is usually left on site. · It is dangerous for thousands of years.
· It can easily be used to make a “dirty bomb”.
Government must subsidize nuclear power plants in order that energy companies will invest in them.
Why Atomic Energy Should Not be Used to Generate Electricity:
The plants are inherently unsafe
· Most of the current plants are operating beyond their age limit.
· Failure to inspect and maintain them.
· Operators are sometimes not reporting safety hazards to NRC.
· Human error puts them at risk.
· When there is an accident, there is risk of injury and death to a large numbers of people, areas becoming uninhabitable and food becoming unsafe to eat.
· Since insurance companies are unwilling to insure them, government assumes the liability.
Problems with spent fuel (atomic waste)
· It must be kept under water to cool it and protect personnel from radiation.
· There is no safe way to dispose of it after it can be taken out of the water. It is usually left on site. · It is dangerous for thousands of years.
· It can easily be used to make a “dirty bomb”.
Government must subsidize nuclear power plants in order that energy companies will invest in them.
The facts all point to this “inconvenient truth” -- the time has
come to shut down California’s two nuclear power plants as part of a
swift transition to an energy policy focused on clean and green
renewable sources and conservation.
The Diablo Canyon plant near San Luis Obispo and the San Onofre plant on the southern California coast are vulnerable to meltdowns from earthquakes and threaten both residents and the environment.
Reactor safety is just one of the concerns. Each nuclear power plant creates radioactive waste that will remain deadly for thousands of years. This is not the kind of legacy that we should leave for future generations.
In the wake of Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant meltdown, we need a basic rethinking of the USA’s nuclear energy use and oversight. There is no more technologically advanced country in the world than Japan. Nuclear power isn’t safe there, and it isn’t safe anywhere.
The Diablo Canyon plant near San Luis Obispo and the San Onofre plant on the southern California coast are vulnerable to meltdowns from earthquakes and threaten both residents and the environment.
Reactor safety is just one of the concerns. Each nuclear power plant creates radioactive waste that will remain deadly for thousands of years. This is not the kind of legacy that we should leave for future generations.
In the wake of Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant meltdown, we need a basic rethinking of the USA’s nuclear energy use and oversight. There is no more technologically advanced country in the world than Japan. Nuclear power isn’t safe there, and it isn’t safe anywhere.
Watchdog group alleges General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Mark 1 design’s
weak containment, inadequate experimental venting back fit, and radioactive waste storage pool
are accidents waiting to happen
The Japanese government has raised the emergency at the Fukushima nuclear plant to level seven, from a level five. This puts it at the highest level, as was Chernobyl.
Grossman and others have been advocating raising the emergency level as a first step for weeks. Professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College at Old Westbury, Grossman is author of "Cover Up: What You Are Not Supposed to Know About Nuclear Power" and "Power Crazy."
He said today: "Finally, the Japanese government is acknowledging a little reality. But the sad fact is that the Fukushima disaster is beyond a level seven disaster, it's off the books. You have multiple reactors and cooling pools.
Grossman just wrote the piece "Fukushima Nuclear Disaster at One Month: The Explosion of Nukespeak,'" which states: "The classic book on disinformation on nuclear technology is 'Nukespeak,' published in 1982. It is dedicated to George Orwell, author of '1984,' and written by Stephen Hilgarten, Richard C. Bell and Rory O’Connor.
Grossman and others have been advocating raising the emergency level as a first step for weeks. Professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College at Old Westbury, Grossman is author of "Cover Up: What You Are Not Supposed to Know About Nuclear Power" and "Power Crazy."
He said today: "Finally, the Japanese government is acknowledging a little reality. But the sad fact is that the Fukushima disaster is beyond a level seven disaster, it's off the books. You have multiple reactors and cooling pools.
Grossman just wrote the piece "Fukushima Nuclear Disaster at One Month: The Explosion of Nukespeak,'" which states: "The classic book on disinformation on nuclear technology is 'Nukespeak,' published in 1982. It is dedicated to George Orwell, author of '1984,' and written by Stephen Hilgarten, Richard C. Bell and Rory O’Connor.
Since the Fukushima accident we have seen a stream of experts on radiation telling us not to worry, that the doses are too low, that the accident is nothing like Chernobyl and so forth. They appear on television and we read their articles in the newspapers and online. Fortunately the majority of the public don’t believe them. I myself have appeared on television and radio with these people; one example was Ian Fells of the University of Newcastle who, after telling us all on BBC News that the accident was nothing like Chernobyl (wrong), and the radiation levels of no consequence (wrong), that the main problem was that there was no electricity and that the lifts didn’t work. ” If you have been in a situation when the lifts don’t work, as I have” he burbled on, “you will know what I mean.” You can see this interview on youtube and decide for yourself.
There is no safe dose of radiation.
We do not x-ray pregnant women.
Any detectable fallout can kill.
With erratic radiation spikes, major air and water emissions and at least three reactors and waste pools in serious danger at Fukushima, we must prepare for the worst.
When you hear the terms "safe" and "insignificant" in reference to radioactive fallout, ask yourself: "Safe for whom?" "Insignificant to which of us?"
Despite the corporate media, what has and will continue to come here from Fukushima is deadly to Americans. At very least it threatens countless embryos and fetuses in utero, the infants, the elderly, the unborn who will come to future mothers now being exposed.
No matter how small the dose, the human egg in waiting, or embryo or fetus in utero, or newborn infant, or weakened elder, has no defense against even the tiniest radioactive assault.
Science has never found such a "safe" threshold, and never will.
We do not x-ray pregnant women.
Any detectable fallout can kill.
With erratic radiation spikes, major air and water emissions and at least three reactors and waste pools in serious danger at Fukushima, we must prepare for the worst.
When you hear the terms "safe" and "insignificant" in reference to radioactive fallout, ask yourself: "Safe for whom?" "Insignificant to which of us?"
Despite the corporate media, what has and will continue to come here from Fukushima is deadly to Americans. At very least it threatens countless embryos and fetuses in utero, the infants, the elderly, the unborn who will come to future mothers now being exposed.
No matter how small the dose, the human egg in waiting, or embryo or fetus in utero, or newborn infant, or weakened elder, has no defense against even the tiniest radioactive assault.
Science has never found such a "safe" threshold, and never will.
The unfolding multiple nuclear reactor catastrophe in Japan is prompting overdue attention to the 104 nuclear plants in the United States - many of them aging, many of them near earthquake faults, some on the west coast exposed to potential tsunamis.
Nuclear power plants boil water to produce steam to turn turbines that generate electricity. Nuclear power's overly complex fuel cycle begins with uranium mines and ends with deadly radioactive wastes for which there still are no permanent storage facilities to contain them for tens of thousands of years.
Atomic power plants generate 20 percent of the nation's electricity. Over forty years ago, the industry's promoter and regulator, the Atomic Energy Commission estimated that a full nuclear meltdown could contaminate an area "the size of Pennsylvania" and cause massive casualties. You, the taxpayers, have heavily subsidized nuclear power research, development, and promotion from day one with tens of billions of dollars.
Nuclear power plants boil water to produce steam to turn turbines that generate electricity. Nuclear power's overly complex fuel cycle begins with uranium mines and ends with deadly radioactive wastes for which there still are no permanent storage facilities to contain them for tens of thousands of years.
Atomic power plants generate 20 percent of the nation's electricity. Over forty years ago, the industry's promoter and regulator, the Atomic Energy Commission estimated that a full nuclear meltdown could contaminate an area "the size of Pennsylvania" and cause massive casualties. You, the taxpayers, have heavily subsidized nuclear power research, development, and promotion from day one with tens of billions of dollars.