Greens Blast Move to Repeal IL Nuclear Moratorium
Greens Blast Move to Repeal IL Nuclear Moratorium
April 3rd, 2009
Greens Blast Move to Repeal IL Nuclear MoratoriumApril 3rd, 2009 Green Party blasts legislative move to repeal Nuclear Moratorium; Calls attempt an effort to undermine Renewable EnergyGreen Party leaders condemned legislative attempts to repeal the Illinois moratorium against new nuclear production. House Bill 875 and Senate Bill 2162 would delete the provision in state law prohibiting the construction of new nuclear facilities until the nuclear waste storage issue is resolved.Nuclear power is bad for the economy, bad for the environment, and bad for the people of Illinois. We need to be phasing out nuclear production. It is completely irresponsible for legislators to champion it.”The Illinois Green Party pointed out that the expansion of nuclear production would undermine the 2007 Renewable Energy Portfolio standard law requiring that Illinois electric utilities produce 25% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025 – and in the process, would be bad for job growth in Illinois.“Renewable energy production and energy efficiency efforts create more jobs
than nuclear production,” said William Edgar, DuPage County Green Party Chair. ”And nuclear is more expensive to produce than wind or geothermal. Nuclear power is bad for workers and bad for consumers.”Greens also pointed to the effort to repeal the nuclear moratorium as further evidence of the pernicious influence of Pay to Play in Illinois politics. The Illinois State Board of Elections Campaign Disclosure site shows over 30 variations of the name Exelon having contributed over $2,500,000 to candidates in Illinois since 2001. Many of these legislators are now sponsoring the moratorium repeal legislation.
“Illinois needs to ban corporate contributions immediately,” said Mark Mallon, Green candidate for Urbana City Council (Ward 2). ”Are we going to get real reform out of Springfield this year, or more of the same?”
The Illinois Green Party recommends the expertise of the Nuclear Energy Information Service (NEIS) for more information on the perils of nuclear power. NEIS is online at www.neis.org.
Pro nuclear push in US Senate
Help Stop Pro-Nuke Budget Amendments NOW!
March 31, 2009
They’re at it again! And we have to act again–now!
The U.S. Senate is currently debating President Obama’s FY 2010 budget on the Senate floor.
A small group of Senators, led by Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC), is preparing to introduce a number of pro-nuclear amendments intended to support still more subsidies to the nuclear industry. Other Senators involved are Crapo, Brownback, Voinovich, and Vitter.
One amendment we’ve seen would allow money to be shifted around in the budget if the nuclear industry can get $50 billion in new loan guarantees later. Another would allow money to be shifted around if pro-nuclear boosters are successful in getting more R&D money for Generation IV reactors. Another would do the same if construction of a reprocessing facility were authorized. These amendments are intended to make it easier for nuclear backers to try again to boost nuclear spending once the budget bill is enacted.
Please call your Senators–NOW--and urge them to vote against any and all amendments to the budget bill that would pave the way for additional nuclear subsidies. Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121.
And please send your Senators an e-mail on these amendments by clicking here.
And please help us pay for this ongoing campaign by making your donation here. Your contributions of any size are gratefully appreciated, and enable us to continue doing this work.
Spread the word–post this Alert everywhere!
Thanks for all you do,
Michael Mariotte
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
Anti-nuclear groups fear danger at new reactor
Anti-nuclear groups fear danger at new reactor Mar 28 2009 by Darren Devine, Western Mail ANTI-NUCLEAR campaigners have warned a type of uranium that is up to 15% more radioactive and has to be stored on site for 100 years will be used, should a new Welsh plant get the go-ahead.The warning came as the Government’s deadline for nominations for sites to house a new generation of nuclear plants passes on Tuesday.The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), which owns Wales’ only nuclear power station at Wylfa, on Anglesey, has already indicated it intends to nominate the site as suitable for a new facility.But the Wales Anti-Nuclear Alliance and Anglesey group Pawb warned that the only two firms left in the bidding process to build and run the new plants intend to use so-called “high burn-up uranium”.The two firms hoping to build the new nuclear sites are US company Westinghouse Electric and Areva of France.
WalesOnline – News – Wales News – Anti-nuclear groups fear danger at new reactor
State House energy panel votes no on lifting nuclear ban
State House energy panel votes no on lifting nuclear banB Star Tribune by ELIZABETH DUNBAR , Associated PressL March 27, 2009 ST. PAUL, Minn. – A state law prevents new nuclear power plants from being built in Minnesota,………………..An effort to change that suffered a setback Thursday, when members of a House energy committee voted down a bill that would lift the ban……………………many, including environmental groups, have argued that little has changed in the more than 15 years Minnesota has had a law banning new nuclear plants. Nuclear waste storage can still be a problem, and President Barack Obama’s budget calls for eliminating funding for a proposed nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada that might have helped states looking for a more permanent place to store the waste…………………
Even if Minnesota were to lift its moratorium, lawmakers on both sides of the issue have acknowledged it would take anywhere from 12 to 14 years and perhaps longer for a nuclear plant to come online in the state.
Some think that’s too long when it comes to finding ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
“We can’t afford to wait,” said Sen. Ellen Anderson, a St. Paul Democrat who opposes lifting the nuclear ban. “I think it will distract from maximizing the potential for wind and other energy sources in Minnesota.”
Strong local opposition to storage site in eastern France
Strong local opposition to storage site in eastern France*
Reuters, Thursday March 26 2009
Areva says hopes to find site in exchange for jobsBy Muriel Boselli and Marie MaitrePARIS, March 26 (Reuters) – Public opposition to storage sites for highly radioactive waste could derail France’s prized nuclear energy programme, the scientific adviser at French nuclear energy group Areva told Reuters on Thursday.France, where 58 nuclear reactors produce 80 percent of the country’s electricity, has not found permanent underground storage with the capacity to bury nuclear energy waste it has generated in the past three decades and the waste it will produce in future.
The highly radioactive waste generated so far is currently stored in above ground facilities at Areva’s nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in La Hague on the northwestern coast of Normandy.
Under French law, Areva will have to bury the waste in a permanent repository by 2025.
French nuclear authorities are considering permanently storing the waste, 500 metres below ground, near Bure in eastern France ……….
……………. But the project is being fiercely resisted by the Bure population, which is calling for a moratorium and a national public debate on radioactive waste management in France………..
……. “A general opposition (to underground storage) in France would eventually kill the nuclear (industry),” Bertrand Barre told Reuters in an interview at Areva’s headquarters.
Nuclear power in the Peace Countryjust doesn’t make sense
Nuclear power in the Peace Country just doesn’t make sense
Grande Prairie Herald Tribune 27 March 09 You know it baffles me that the idea of creating a nuclear power plant would even be entertained knowing what we know.We don’t know what to do with used tires, but we’re willing to take on the responsibility of nuclear waste. That doesn’t make sense.Nuclear waste not only poisons the earth, but actually alters life on a genetic level with a toxic poisoning that literally keeps killing generation after generation.Haven’t we already learned that the ‘out of sight, out of mind’ attitude doesn’t work now that we’re living in an era where we are taught to recycle, reuse and reduce?
Is the initial investment of funds or the enticement of jobs really worth a facility that creates waste that remains toxic for centuries?
Opposition to nuclear is getting stronger
Opposition to nuclear is getting stronger The Nipawn Journal By Steve Lawrence 25 March 09 Prince Albert – “………………..people should be alert to nuclear risks. If citizens are willing to make an informed decision to take nuclear risks anyway, then that is democracy. Based on actual bids last year, Moody’s rating service and Standards and Poor noted the cost of nuclear was 3.5 times the cost of wind and at least double that of solar. Since then the cost of nuclear has continued to rise, and the solar technologies have become dramatically cheaper and closer to zero carbon footprint. This makes promoters of nuclear technologies look like dreamers, considering financers require the public assume 100% risk for new nuclear projects……………
Investors will find renewable energy cheaper, a good investment, provides five times the jobs, buildable where and when needed without major transmission lines. Countries like Germany are proving renewable energy production provides reliable base load 24/7, their waste stream is negligible and won’t prove a burden to future generations, plus they are approaching zero carbon. Conservation has an even better return.
Nuclear does poorly on all counts, and its large capacity demands we provide for 2000 MW additional backup for downtime. The more expensive our energy, the less competitive our economy. Nuclear – a high-priced risk!
Opposition to nuclear is getting stronger – Nipawin Journal – Saskatchewan, CA
Gore – on nuclear power
Gore on Lovelock, nuclear power and climate change sceptics
Environment Blog 17 March 09
“………………….Gore on nuclear power
I’m not a reflexive opponent of nuclear. I used to be enthusiastic about it, but I’m now sceptical about it. There’s a few reasons. Let’s assume for the moment that we will solve the problem of long-term storage of radioactive waste. Let’s assume also that we’ll figure out how to standardise their design as [each plant] is currently unique and that enhances the risk of operator accidents. Let’s assume we can solve the terrorism threat to nuclear reactors. That still leaves a couple of very difficult problems.
First and foremost, economics. The nuclear industry cannot give any reliable cost estimate for how much it will take to build a nuclear plant. When a utility is confronted with the absence of any advances for how much the construction cost is going to be, then that’s a problem.
…………………………….. If you’re looking at the trends towards more conservation and the rapid introduction of renewables, it’s hard for you to project what your demand is going to be with as much precision as when the world was more predictable. As a result, you are less inclined to take all of your money and place one big bet on something that matures 12-15 years from now at an uncertain cost. That what’s called a “lumpy investment” and they want smaller increments that give them smaller flexibility. In the US, there hasn’t been a new order for a new reactor in 36 years…………………………………
For the eight years that I spent in the White House every nuclear weapons proliferation problem we dealt with was connected to a reactor programme. People have said for years that there are now completely different [nuclear] technologies. OK, but if you have a team of scientists that can build a reactor, and you’re a dictator, you can make them work at night to build a nuclear weapon. That’s what’s happened in North Korea and Iran. And in Libya before they gave it up. So the idea of, say, Chad, Burma, and Sudan having lots of nuclear reactors is insane and it’s not going to happen…………………………”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/mar/16/climate-change-al-gore
nuclear-free energy solutions
Greenpeace executive eyes nuclear-free energy solutions
The Kingston Whig Standard JENNIFER PRITCHETT 17 March 09
Ontario’s plan to spend billions in taxpayer dollars on nuclear power is standing in the way of the province realizing its goal of becoming a true leader in green energy, says the executive director of Greenpeace.
“You can’t say you’re going to be a green leader and be committed to 50% nuclear power,” Bruce Cox said. “It’s Orwellian.”
Cox, who’ll be speaking in Kingston tonight, argued for nuclear-free solutions to climate change.
He said nuclear power is “dirty, dangerous, expensive and unnecessary.” …………….. Greenpeace is urging the Ontario government to phase out its Pickering B reactors when they reach the end of their natural life and then abandon plans to install new ones.
Instead of nuclear power, the organization is urging the government to invest in conservation, efficiency and cogeneration — methods to recapture by-products such as steam to use as heat — as well as renewable forms of energy such as wind, solar and biomass.
……………….. Cox also warned people about what he terms as “constant ongoing low-level radiation leaks coming out of the generation process.
“We’ve had two this year dumping into the Ottawa River,” he said. “This is not unusual. It’s ongoing … then after 20-25 years of generation, we’re left with literally tons of radioactive, poisonous waste that takes generations to get rid of. So it’s not green.”
He also challenges the position that nuclear power is affordable.
“Actually, it’s not affordable,” he said. “There’s never been a reactor built on time or on budget. The average cost overrun of a reactor in Ontario is four or five times the original estimate. ”
Finally, Cox disagrees with claims that nuclear power is reliable.
“[Reactors] run at about 62% of their life expectancy,” he maintained. “When a nuclear generator goes down, the province suffers.”
Nonproliferation panel urges U.S. to adopt no first use of nuke arms
Nonproliferation panel urges U.S. to adopt no first use of nuke arms
(Source: iStockAnalyst )
Sunday, March 15, 2009
TOKYO, Mar. 15, 2009 (Kyodo News International) — A panel promoting nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation will urge the United States to take a leadership role in nuclear disarmament by developing a nuclear policy of ”no first use,” according to a draft of policy recommendations made available on Sunday.
The International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament will also urge the United States to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and restore the U.S.-Russia strategic nuclear arms control process as part of its five-point proposals, according to the draft.
The commission seeks to achieve total abolition of nuclear weapons in three stages, with the five-point recommendations for Washington serving as its initial step, said Nobuyasu Abe, former U.N. undersecretary general for disarmament affairs, who is a member of the panel’s advisory board.
The commission, a joint initiative established by the Australian and Japanese governments, will complete the report by the end of this year as the panel seeks to promote nuclear disarmament ahead of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in spring 2010.
U.S. President Barack Obama has set a world without nuclear weapons as one of his policy goals.
No first use is a pledge not to use nuclear arms by a nuclear power unless the country or its allies are first attacked by an enemy with a nuclear weapon.
…………………… Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and then Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda agreed to establish the commission in July last year, and its members have met last October and February this year since its launch.
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/311847
Lawmakers nix Arizona ‘power park’ proposal | proposal
Lawmakers nix Arizona ‘power park’ proposal
Yma Sun March 12, 2009PHOENIX – State lawmakers killed a proposal Wednesday to create a new level of government to set up “power parks” around the state for new solar, wind and nuclear power plants……………………….Rep. Steve Farley, D-Tucson, said he might have voted for it had the special benefits been limited to solar and wind plants. But he did not want to encourage more nuclear power plants in Arizona until the problems with dealing with radioactive waste have been worked out.
Lawmakers nix Arizona ‘power park’ proposal | proposal, arizona, lawmakers – News – YumaSun
Fermi 3 opposition takes legal action to block new nuclear reactor
Fermi 3 opposition takes legal action to block new nuclear reactor By Eartha Jane Melzer 3/11/09 5A coalition of environmental groups is asking federal regulators to put the brakes on the proposed expansion of the Fermi nuclear power plant in Monroe County on the grounds that it is unnecessary and poses threats to the environment and human health.Beyond Nuclear, Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination, Citizens Environment Alliance of Southwestern Ontario, Don’t Waste Michigan and the Sierra Club, are all representing locals who live within 50 miles of Fermi and therefore have legal standing to intervene in the reactor permitting process……………..
And spent fuel from the plant will be kept on site — perhaps forever, since the Obama administration has withdrawn support for the planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility in Nevada. The presence of nuclear waste so close to the water supply for tens of million of people represents a threat to security and the environment, the groups contend………………………..
…………………..Environmental epidemiologist Robert Wahl of the department’s Environmental Health Division explained that while the state compiles data from clinicians on cancer cases in the state it does not have the resources to evaluate that data for trends and relies on citizens to alert the department when worrying cancer trends appear. Wahl said he would use Michigan Messenger’s reporting on Monroe County cancer rates as a starting point for analysis of cancer trends there.
Michigan Messenger » Fermi 3 opposition takes legal action to block new nuclear reactor
McAuliffe fired up about green energy, not so much on nuclear
McAuliffe fired up about green energy, not so much on nuclear The News and Advance By Ray Reed
Published: March 11, 2009
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe announced the energy phase of the business model he’d use for governing Virginia on Wednesday, showing enthusiasm for new, green energy but little for existing sources such as coal and nuclear power……………………..
he said, there are questions about how to handle the waste from used fuel.
“But beyond all that is the pure economics” of nuclear power, McAuliffe said. “The average cost of a nuclear plant is $16 billion. The application fee for a license is $25 million,” he said.
“Dominion Power and the others are not going to be building new plants now, and you couldn’t find the financing if you wanted to build one.”
McAuliffe fired up about green energy, not so much on nuclear | Lynchburg News Advance
How France Sees Its Nuclear-Powered Future
How France Sees Its Nuclear-Powered Future It expands the use of nuclear energy at home and seeks to increase nuclear-technology sales abroad USNews.com By Eduardo Cue March 10, 2009 PARIS—……………………..Opponents are warning that the new nuclear plants are too costly and will produce more dangerous waste that contains significantly higher levels of radioactive material. …………………..
The lack of real debate here until recently, critics say, was less a vote of public support than a failure in the French political system. “Nobody asked the French people what they thought,” remarks Jean-Philippe Desbordes, author of Atomic Park, a book critical of the French program. “France is much less democratic than the United States.”…………………………In January, President Nicolas Sarkozy announced the construction of a new-generation European pressurized water reactor, or EPR, in Penly in northern France………………………….The decision to build the Penly plant was quickly challenged by environmentalists, who say high levels ofradioactivity from the new plant will pose a serious health risk to workers and that nuclear waste will have to be stored above ground for a longer period than has been the case to date. “Despite the French government’s global marketing of its flagship European Pressurized Reactor as cheap and safe,” the environmental group Greenpeace said in a statement, “nuclear energy is rapidly becoming the most expensive way to produce electricity, and its highly radioactive waste poses an ever- increasing problem.”
In announcing the construction of the Penly plant, the second in the series, the French government is hoping that building the reactor will persuade potential foreign clients to import the technology. Although no EPRs are now operating, two are currently under construction, one in Finland at Olkiluoto and the other in Flamanville in France’s Normandy region. The Finnish reactor has faced serious construction problems, including flawed pipes and waterlogged concrete, that have delayed its original April 2009 completion date by three years and led to cost overruns of 50 percent……………….
…………….The downside, according to critics, is that in the case of the French program, the government simply decided to trivialize the risks by placing the nuclear power plants near where people live, thereby giving a false sense of security as the installations came to be seen as part of the landscape.
Washington Century: Safe investments
Washington Century: Safe investments
Seattle.pi.com March 8, 2009 The legacy of dangerous waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation has defied resolution for decades.
The federal government must meet its responsibility to the public, the land and the environment. The state’s responsibility is to hold the feds to their promises and their larger moral obligations to a region that gave unselfishly to the atomic efforts judged necessary by the nation’s leadership during World War II.
…………………. The Bush administration’s dangerous pro-nuclear agendas on both electrical power and weapons were problems, even as Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman tried to maintain a decent commitment to cleaning up waste at Hanford.
The signs are more encouraging with President Barack Obama. As Murray noted recently, the federal stimulus bill gave a good boost to an environmental management account that has traditionally helped Hanford.
No one should fool themselves about the likelihood of smooth, steady progress on remediating the huge amounts of waste that threaten workers and the environment, especially the Columbia River. The nation has done a remarkably poor job of addressing even the most blatant human consequences of nuclear weapons testing and production even in this country. As Seattle author Holly Barker says, it’s been even worse for those who were abroad, including Marshall Island residents, some of whom some now live here. They were essentially treated as human guinea pigs, and still have little help in dealing with the consequences.
Solving Hanford’s waste problems cannot be separated from larger decisions. Society may well continue to create troubles faster than a cleanup resolves them, from Hanford to Pakistan. The allure of nuclear reactors continues to grip many, despite the decades of failure to secure waste permanently from natural or terrorist forces.
1 This Month
23-25 October – on Zoom – World BEYOND War’s annual global conferenc
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- October 2026 (219)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
