nuclear-news

Nobel prize-winner rejects nuclear hype

Question and answer with Jody Williams
Burlington Free Press
Interviewe By Tim Johnson • Free Press Staff Writer • August 9, 2009
Jody Williams, 58, a native of Brattleboro and a graduate of the University of Vermont, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 for her work with the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. In 2006, with five other peace-prize laureates, she co-founded the Nobel Women’s Initiative, in support of women’s organizations worldwide working for peace, justice and equality.

Tim Johnson: What are your thoughts on nuclear energy as a power source?
Jody Williams: I am not pro nuclear energy. I think looking backward in time for a response to today’s problems is ridiculous. I really take offense at the lies that it’s clean, sustainable, etc. Mining uranium is not clean. Building the plant is not clean. Decommissioning the reactors is most definitely not clean, and where … do you put the radioactivity, which can last for hundreds of thousands of years? So, putting it forth as a clean alternative is (b.s.), and I hate being lied to, quite honestly………….

Without taxpayer money, it wouldn’t exist at all. Private investors don’t invest in it, as with most everything that’s full of crap. Look, I’d rather have my billions of dollars going to finding really clean, sustainable energy, not looking back to nukes. I’m really terrified about where you’re going to put all the crap. Last I checked … there’s no place in the United States that nationally will accept nuclear waste now.

Question and answer with Jody Williams, anti-nuclear activists | burlingtonfreepress.com | The Burlington Free Press

August 10, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 1 | Leave a comment

US and Australian climate bills: necessary evils

Green Left 9 August 2009
“…………..Renewables are not advantaged by the US bill. Instead, nuclear power generation is expected to grow 150% by 2050 to make up 40% of total US electricity.

While there is a nominal 20% renewable electricity requirement by 2020, the bill reduces the requirement for efficiency gains, new nuclear and carbon capture and storage generation and existing hydropower. This means forecast renewable electricity would amount to 12% of the total in 2020 and reach 20% only by 2030………………………

Very generous concessions are provided to trade-exposed, emission-intensive industries. These are only phased out between 2025 and 2035 or earlier if other countries “take comparable action on climate change”. Local electricity distributors are given a declining volume of free allowances until 2030.

It is striking how little pain the bill inflicts. Household consumption is still expected to have increased by 80% by 2050. Without the bill, household consumption would be only 1% higher……………..

To sum up: the two bills as currently framed propose minimalist short-term actions to meet current political expectations. There is no hint of a change to the “material growth is good” mindset.

Although grand designs are presented for the longer term, the reality is that it is left for future generations to sort things out. Concerned environmentalists should do anything and everything to draw attention to this.

Green Left – US and Australian climate bills: necessary evils

August 10, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 1 | Leave a comment

Energy security does not require nuclear power

Wicks presents nuclear distraction
by David Masters
August 9, 2009

”

……………..The report by former energy minister Malcolm Wicks said increasing Britain’s nuclear capacity is vital to the UK’s future energy security……….

Greenpeace dismissed the report as “a dangerous distraction from the real solutions to climate change and energy security”.

“With the costs of nuclear reactors soaring to around seven billion euros, and the only plants being built in the western world plagued with safety, financial and construction problems, it’s clear where the UK’s priorities should lie,” said Robin Oakley, Greenpeace climate and energy spokesperson.

Liberal Democrat Shadow Energy and Climate Change Secretary Simon Hughes attacked Wicks’s report as scare tactics.

“This review is an attempt to scare the British public into accepting new nuclear power stations,” Hughes said.

“But energy security does not have to mean capitulation to massive nuclear subsidies.

“Britain needs a massive expansion of renewable energy that builds on the advantage of our natural resources.”

Wicks presents nuclear distraction

August 10, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 1 | Leave a comment