ISSUE IN-DEPTH: NUCLEAR POWER: Nuclear power bad on so many levels | ajc.com
NUCLEAR POWER: Nuclear power bad on so many levels
For the Journal-Constitution
Sunday, November 02, 2008
After 60 years and many billions of dollars in government subsidies, nuclear power should finally have to prove itself on its own merits —- which evidently it cannot do in a free market.
Not only are taxpayers and citizens shouldering an unfair burden of the costs of nuclear power, but, even with these subsidies, as consumers we will be forced to cover the rising costs of nuclear plant construction.
These costs have consistently been well above even the high price tag quoted at the start of the project. Overruns of 50 percent or more will be paid by energy consumers, as utility rates are raised ever higher to protect guaranteed profits for investors………………………….
Added to these unfair economic burdens on American taxpayers and consumers are the significant risks of moving and storing nuclear materials, made even more threatening by the prospects of terrorism.
Following six decades of attempting to find a “safe” and dependable way of storing radioactive waste from nuclear plants, experts still have no solution. These materials will remain a major public health threat for thousands of years. The more such materials we use, transport and store, the greater that threat becomes…………………Due to water demands for cooling, extravagant federal subsidies for new nuclear plants would worsen problems in our rivers and intensify disputes over water supply. Fish habitat and recreational amenities would also suffer, while funds taken from taxpayers and consumers paid for this wasteful energy choice……………………………Ultimately, the costs of wind power would be far lower than those of conventional sources that face rising fuel prices and diminishing supplies. Recent analysis by Amory B. Lovins (“The Nuclear Illusion” ) found that, including expenses for facilities, infrastructure and operations, power produced from wind costs half as much as nuclear. Notably, the enormous costs of storing radioactive waste and decommissioning old plants were not even included in this comparison.
ISSUE IN-DEPTH: NUCLEAR POWER: Nuclear power bad on so many levels | ajc.com
Tags: nuclear, antinuclear, radioactive, uranium
No comments yet.
Leave a Reply
1 THIS MONTH
Uranium mining in Namibia http://namibian.me/group/canwin2?commentId=4103091%3AComment%3A47391&xg_source=msg_com_group
Nuclear industry is moribund, despite 2 new reactors licensed in USA http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3428147.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3413882.htm Is the world facing a groundwater crisis?
of the week http://climaterealityproject.org/thin-ice/
and another WEBSITE : - New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution http://www.necnp.org/
EVENT
February 18 Hindsdale, Chicago American Association of University Women - nuclear disaster preparedness H.OB.aauw.reservations@gmail.com.
March 2012 is “March Against Nuclear Madness” and Beyond Nuclear has created a new March Against Nuclear Madness Facebook page.
March 8th & 9th – Cape Town, South Africa - The Global Conference: Nuclear Power For Africa? http://koebergalert.org/npfree/
May 31 USA - Portland, Maine, Bonnie Raitt benefit concert for New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution
Nuclear power and water – theme for February 2012
FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR PLANT and WATER – present state
That nuclear core is in direct contact with tons of water. And that containment, while not leaking down, is leaking out the sides. That contaminated water is going into every other building on site. And there is literally thousands and thousands of tons of water in other buildings. That water contains radioactive cesium, radioactive strontium, and it also contains nuclear fuel. There will be uranium in that water and plutonium in that water as well. We know for sure that that water is leaking into the ground water and into the Pacific Ocean. So while it is important to know that we are not going to release the nuclear core directly into the center of the earth, the problem is not over. And as a matter of fact, the problem will last for tens, perhaps even as long as 30 years because this contaminated water is in the basements of all the buildings on site. And not only does it contain cesium (that hangs around for 300 years), strontium (hangs around for 300 years), but it also contains plutonium and uranium and they have half lives of tens of thousands of years.
So the problem is, what do we do with all that water that is contaminated? It is already leaking into the groundwater. It is already leaking into the ocean. TEPCO is frantically catching it and putting it into tanks. But just today, TEPCO announced that they are running out of tank space on site, and eventually they are going to have to release those tanks into the Pacific Ocean. Now they will try to clean up some of the isotopes like cesium. But they have been unable to capture all the strontium. Strontium is a bone seeker that causes leukemia… http://fairewinds.com/content/fukushima-could-it-have-china-syndrome
NUCLEAR REACTORS - WATER USE : Per megawatt existing nuclear power stations use and consume more water than power stations using other fuel sources. Depending on the cooling technology utilised, the water requirements for a nuclear power station can vary between 20 to 83 per cent more than for other power stations.”- Dep of Parliamentary Services research note, 4 December 2006, no. 12, 2006–07, ISSN 1449-8456 Water consumption figures:
Nuclear: 2.3 L/ kWh
Solar (PV): 0.110 L/ kWh
Wind: 0.004 L/ kWh
(American Wind Energy Association estimate & US DOE)
A typical 1000-megawatt pressurized-water reactor (with a cooling tower) takes in 20,000 gallons of river, lake or ocean water per minute for cooling, circulates it through a 50-mile maze of pipes, returns 5,000 gallons per minute to the same body of water, and releases the remainder to the atmosphere as vapor. A 1000-megawatt reactor without a cooling tower takes in even more water–as much as one-half million gallons per minute. The discharge water is contaminated with radioactive elements in amounts that are not precisely known or knowable, but are biologically active.
Some radioactive fission gases, stripped from the reactor cooling water, are contained in decay tanks for days before being released into the atmosphere through filtered rooftop vents. Some gases leak into the power plant buildings’ interiors and are released during periodic “purges” and “ventings.” These airborne gases contaminate not only the air, but also soil and water. http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/routineradioactivereleases.htm
NUCLEAR REACTORS -IONISING RADIATION to GROUNDWATER In USA the nuclear industry has contaminated groundwater with radioactive tritium at nuclear power plant sites all across the country. Nuclear plants that have admitted leaking tritium into the groundwater include:
- Braidwood, Byron, Dresden and Quad Cities in Illinois;
- Indian Point and Fitzpatrick in New York;
- Yankee Rowe and Pilgrim in Massachusetts;
- Three Mile Island and Peach Bottom in Pennsylvania;
- Callaway in Missouri
- Catawba in South Carolina
- Oyster Creek in New Jersey
- Hatch in Georgia
- Palo Verde In Arizona
- Perry in Ohio
- Palisades in Michigan
- Point Beach in Wisconsin
- Salem in Delaware
- San Onofre in California
- Seabrook in New Hampshire
- Shearon Harris in North Carolina
- Watts Bar in Tennessee
- Wolf Creek in Kansas
- Connecticut Yankee in Connecticut
- Vermont Yankee in Vermont
URANIUM MINING – OPEN CUT or UNDERGROUND It is very difficult to find figures on the amounts of water used. All mining is water intensive, but uranium mining is the greatest guzzler Water is extensively used to suppress airborne dust levels, to try to reduce the radioactive clouds that would otherwise emanate constantly from the uranium tailings.IN SITU LEACHING – Uranium Mining Process in-situ leaching uses a hydrogen peroxide mixture to strip the uranium from the rock, which kills tissue and destroys cells in human and animal life. The addition of oxygen and sodium bicarbonate called oxygenates causes uranium and other radioactive substances and trace metals to be liberated from the rock into the groundwater.
.. judges have too often taken the stance that they are judges who know nothing of the mining industry and accept the data of corporations, claiming the corporations are in the know.
..the water taken from the extremely pristine Westwater Canyon Aquifer near Crownpoint for uranium mining and used for flushing out chemicals would not be replaced in our lifetimes.
It takes hundreds, perhaps thousands of years, to transform aquifer water back into a drinkable condition. Virginia Against Uranium Mining: Scientists Back Navajos’ Uranium Mining Fight: Tribe fears contamination of drinking water
-
Archives
- February 2012 (155)
- January 2012 (259)
- December 2011 (274)
- November 2011 (331)
- October 2011 (249)
- September 2011 (272)
- August 2011 (249)
- July 2011 (227)
- June 2011 (195)
- May 2011 (286)
- April 2011 (336)
- March 2011 (295)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- people
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety and incidents
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina background info
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- general
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
