2009 June 12 « nuclear-news

US nuclear industry tries to hijack Obama’s climate change bill

US nuclear industry tries to hijack Obama’s climate change bill The Guardian Suzanne goldenberg 11 June 09 Republicans seek federal financing for 100 new reactors despite huge capital costs and unsolved problems of storing waste America’s nuclear industry and its supporters in Congress have moved to hijack Barack Obama’s agenda for greening the economy by producing a rival plan to build 100 new reactors in 20 years, and staking a claim for the money to come from a proposed clean energy development bank……………….The 152-page Republican bill contains just one reference to climate change, and proposes easing controls for new nuclear plants.

In the Senate, Republican leaders, including the former presidential candidate John McCain, also called this week for loan guarantees for building new reactors to rise from $18.5bn (£11.2bn) to $38bn. Other Republicans have called on the administration to underwrite the $122bn start-up costs of 19 nuclear reactors, whose applications are now under review by the department of energy. …………………..

Ellen Vancko, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said: “The nuclear industry would like to be able to finance the next generation of nuclear reactors using the faith and credit of the US taxpayer to underwrite the expansion. They don’t want to be responsible for any risk of financing these plants and neither do their lenders.”

No new reactors have been ordered in 30 years, not least due to the challenges of raising $5bn-$12bn to build a new plant………………………If Republican efforts in Congress for a nuclear energy bill and a clean energy bank fail, the US nuclear renaissance is likely to be restricted to new reactors already being built. Jim Riccio, Greenpeace nuclear analyst, said: “The renaissance is on hold or maybe dead on arrival.”

US nuclear industry tries to hijack Obama’s climate change bill | Environment | guardian.co.uk

June 12, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Critics of Bataan Nuclear Plant Revival Gear for House Battle

By JANESS ANN J. ELLAO Bulatlat MANILA 12 June 09 — The Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) is one of the most controversial projects of former president Ferdinand Marcos. The plant construction began in 1977 despite strong opposition from various sectors because of the risks it poses on the life and health of the people…………………..It was the Marcos regime’s milking cow and the same scenario would possible happen upon the revival of BNPP under the current administration. “The people will not forgive the representatives that will pass this folly of a bill,” Dr. Giovanni Tapang, spokesman of Network Opposed to BNPP Revival (NO to BNPP Revival), said. He added that the government would only pass on the responsibility of paying all the unnecessary expenditures that would be used for the construction of the power plant to the tax-paying Filipino people

Critics of Bataan Nuclear Plant Revival Gear for House Battle – Bulatlat

June 12, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Passionate presentations made at Uranium public consultation in Swift Current

Passionate presentations made at Uranium public consultation in Swift GEORGE BOWDITCHThe Southwest Booster11 June 09 – “………………..The mainly anti-uranium crowd in attendance left no doubt that they were opposed to the development of the Uranium in Saskatchewan. Tom Shelstad was very pleased that everyone had a chance to say what they wanted and the way the meeting was ran impressed him.

“I am very pleased with the format they had here. Everybody had a chance to say what they wanted to say and we got a wide variety of opinions and ideas. I am really impressed. It was a lot better than I expected.”

While Shelstad is opposed to the development of uranium, he did offer ideas on alternative options for energy in Saskatchewan.

“Energy conservation is an untapped area that we could really pursue. We have technologies now that we didn’t have before so we can make our machines run better and more efficient than ever before.

“Solar power, we have enough sunshine and wide open spaces here we could easily have solar farms here. There are a lot of rooftop in Saskatchewan and you could add solar panels to all of them and that would make quite a difference.”

“Nuclear power has been around since the second world war and we have had a lot of experience with it so now we know all the drawbacks and pitfalls with it. There are a lot of them. There are a lot of problems with nuclear power and not only that, economically it seems to be the most expensive form of power around so why would we pursue nuclear power if we have alternatives.”

The Southwest Booster: News | Passionate presentations made at Uranium public consultation in Swift Current

June 12, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Fossil Fuel Vs. Renewable Energy Subsidies

Fossil Fuel Vs. Renewable Energy Subsidies Energy Matters 12 June 09 Renewable energy is often thought to be too expensive to be a real solution to our long term electricity generation needs. Coal and various fossil fuels on the other hand appears quite cheap. Or are they? While renewable energy’s opponents might complain about various subsidies and government rebates costing too much, what many people don’t realise is that fossil fuels have been subsidised to the hilt over the years. dditionally, strategies such as a solar feed in tariff scheme do not rely on government funding; in fact, feed in tariffs are stimulus without the public debt.……………………… In the recent Australian federal budget, $4.5 billion was earmarked to go towards clean energy, but over half will go towards low-emissions coal technologies, also known as “clean coal” or “new generation coal“.

With these sorts of massive injections continuing to sustain the fossil fuel industry, it does give pause for thought as to where Australia could be now with equivalent funding poured into the country’s renewable energy sector

Fossil Fuel Vs. Renewable Energy Subsidies : Renewable Energy News

June 12, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Uranium companies urged to protect industry’s reputation

Uranium companies urged to protect industry’s reputation ABC Rural News 10 June 09 10/06/2009 Junior uranium companies attending an international conference in Darwin have been told to be careful and responsible

(Ha ha – I thought they’d be keen to cover up their bad reputation!!! – Christina Macpherson)

Uranium companies urged to protect industry’s reputation – 10/06/2009

June 12, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

World’s biggest open pit operation could be a reality

World’s biggest open pit operation could be a reality Australian Journal of Mining By Paula Wallace — Jun 11, 2009 “…………………….BHP is not releasing any information in relation to potential costs of the proposed expansion but some industry experts have guessed at a figure between $10 and 15 billion.
Whilst it has outlined a number of aspects of the massive Roxby Downs development, the miner has been criticised by environmental, anti-nuclear and community groups for not providing a wider range of alternatives which for one would take into account concerns about radioactive waste at the mine site and in downstream uses………………………………….In 2007 South Australian Premier Mike Rann reportedly said, “BHP Billiton is expecting the South Australian Government to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into this mine through the provision of infrastructure and services…we want and expect a decent return on our investment,” said Rann…………………BHP said that it is currently “continuing discussions with the South Australian Government about the provision of public infrastructure necessary to support the expansion of the Roxby Downs township.”…………………..The project will require the approval of the South Australian, Northern Territory and Federal Governments to proceed, and in its current form includes huge water and energy demands.
The study states that an expanded mine would consume five times as much power as the current Olympic Dam mine and consume 250 megalitres of water a day – an increase from the current daily level of 37 megalitres.
The plan has a desalination plant being built near Whyalla to provide most of the water required, while a new 105 kilometre rail link will be needed to connect the mine to the Adelaide-Darwin railway.
The effects these water and energy demands will have on the company’s overall carbon footprint and that of South Australia, have concerned environmental and community groups.