War criminal hoWARd should get Red Light to go nukiller!
Parrot Press | 05.11.2006 01:09 | Analysis | Ecology | Health | World
AUSTRALIA: War criminal john hoWARd's hand-picked nuclear energy taskforce may find that a nuclear industry could be commercially viable? [but sustainably unviable now] and not within 15 years, giving the green light to the war criminal Prime Sinister to radically shake up Australia's energy market is like giving saddam hussain WMD.
RED LIGHT
RED LIGHT
RED LIGHT
Nuclear Power Issues
[Information provided courtesy of the Safe Energy Communication Council]
The accident at the Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear power plant in southeastern Pennsylvania was a watershed event for nuclear power in the United States. The fallout from the accident initiated a long, slow downward spiral for the industry. Since TMI, no reactors have been ordered in the U.S. and every reactor ordered by a utility after 1974 has been canceled. Seventy-four plants under construction at the time of the accident were canceled, while only 53 were completed and placed into service. Thirteen plants that were operating at the time of the accident have since been prematurely shut down.
Despite the economic and technical failures of nuclear power, the nuclear industry is mobilizing for a resurgence of nuclear power as a solution to the problem of climate change. However, nuclear power still presents serious problems, such as waste disposal, decommissioning costs and the danger of nuclear accidents. These issues preclude the use of nuclear power as a safe, environmentally friendly and economic means of addressing climate change.
Furthermore, renewed investment in nuclear power as a climate protection strategy would drain resources from more effective energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions at lower cost without producing additional environmental and safety problems.
Endless Taxpayer Subsidies
According to the Congressional Research Service, federal spending on energy research and development has disproportionately favored nuclear power.
From 1948 to 1998, 59% of R&D funding ($66 billion in constant 1999 dollars) went to nuclear power, 23% to fossil energy ($26 billion), 11% to renewable energy ($12 billion), and 7% to energy efficiency ($8 billion).
Despite this massive infusion of federal funds (and billions more in indirect subsidies, such as the Price Anderson limits on nuclear industry liability for accidents), nuclear power has not become a major player in our national energy mix. Today, nuclear power contributes approximately 8% of total U.S. energy supply and 20% of electricity production.
Nuclear Power is not Competitive
In the U.S., 27 reactors have been closed after operating for an average of 15 years. This amounts to 37% of the licensed and projected lifetime of U.S. reactors. This empirical trend flies in the face of the industry’s claims of reliability and challenges the industry’s assertions that the technology, through relicensing and new construction, is a viable strategy for addressing climate change.
More shutdowns are predicted with the continued restructuring of the electric power industry. According to the U.S. Department of Energy’s 2000 Annual Energy Outlook, 13 nuclear units are expected to be retired early in its reference case projection, while no nuclear units are expected to become operable by 2020. The U.S. DOE predicts that nuclear power's share of electricity generation will fall from 20% currently to just 10% in 2020.
In 1998, the Washington International Energy Group, an energy industry analyst, released an update to its study: Nuclear Power Plants and Implications of Early Shutdown for Future Natural Gas Demand. The report evaluated the performance of nuclear power plants and found that among the 72 reactor sites (each site includes one or more reactors), 34 sites will likely not be able to compete in their deregulated regional market. The owners of six reactors at these sites have already announced permanent shutdowns.
The Business Community and the Public Agree: Nuclear Power is no Longer a Viable Technology
The view from electric utility boardrooms is not encouraging for the technology once considered “too cheap to meter.”
According to Energy Industry Outlook 2000, an annual survey of industry executives published by Hagler Bailly, only 54% believe that nuclear power can compete in “a price conscious market” and 75% agree that no new nuclear reactors will be ordered in the near future.
A 1999 national opinion survey commissioned by the Sustainable Energy Coalition found that 6 out of 10 individuals opposed the construction of nuclear reactors in the U.S. Given a choice for electricity, 62% said they would pick renewable energy, 18% natural gas, 6% nuclear and 5% coal. Over two-thirds said that an accident similar to that at Three Mile Island was likely to happen again in the U.S.
The Bailout of Failed Nuclear Investments is Delaying Meaningful Competition in the Electric Power Industry
Electric utilities are receiving bailouts from utility ratepayers to pay for their uncompetitive nuclear investments as electric power industry deregulates. These bailouts are slowing and potential preventing the development of workable competitive electricity markets by barring potential competitors from the market.
Many utilities have already been granted billions for so-called “stranded costs,” primarily investments in uneconomical nuclear plants. The assessment of mandatory ratepayer fees for these costs delays meaningful competition by reducing the shopping credit available to consumers to seek other electricity suppliers.
The nuclear bailout will likely dwarf the Savings and Loan debacle. A study by the Safe Energy Communication Council, The Great Ratepayer Robbery: How Utilities are Making Out Like Bandits at the Dawn of Deregulation, concludes that estimates of stranded costs in a mere 11 states total over $112 billion.
Nuclear Power Industry Propaganda
The nuclear industry has been attempting to recast nuclear power as an environmentally friendly technology and a viable solution to climate change. This new media campaign is rife with falsehoods. In reaction to the egregious inaccuracies and half-truths of the campaign, more than a dozen environmental groups have brought legal challenges against the nuclear industry.
With an annual budget of $28.5 million, the Nuclear Energy Institute spends millions each year attempting to revive the nuclear power industry. However, in December 1998, acting on a formal complaint by 15 environmental, consumer, public policy and business organizations, the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus ruled that NEI’s advertisements were inaccurate and should be discontinued. In the first decision ever by the NAD on electricity product advertising, the ad watchdog called on the NEI to terminate its advertisements to “avoid any potential for consumer confusion and that broad, unqualified claims that nuclear energy is ‘environmentally clean’ or produces electricity ‘without polluting the environment’ be discontinued.”
http://www.sustainableenergy.org/resources/technologies/nuclear.htm
Related:
Community urges war criminal to give himself up and resign!
He is telling other people to be responsible yet he has committed war crimes against humanity amongst other criminal acts and is not in any position to dictate to the Australian people. Why would people listen? Who would trust a criminal? Get out of the House!
http://adelaide.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/45019
[Information provided courtesy of the Safe Energy Communication Council]
The accident at the Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear power plant in southeastern Pennsylvania was a watershed event for nuclear power in the United States. The fallout from the accident initiated a long, slow downward spiral for the industry. Since TMI, no reactors have been ordered in the U.S. and every reactor ordered by a utility after 1974 has been canceled. Seventy-four plants under construction at the time of the accident were canceled, while only 53 were completed and placed into service. Thirteen plants that were operating at the time of the accident have since been prematurely shut down.
Despite the economic and technical failures of nuclear power, the nuclear industry is mobilizing for a resurgence of nuclear power as a solution to the problem of climate change. However, nuclear power still presents serious problems, such as waste disposal, decommissioning costs and the danger of nuclear accidents. These issues preclude the use of nuclear power as a safe, environmentally friendly and economic means of addressing climate change.
Furthermore, renewed investment in nuclear power as a climate protection strategy would drain resources from more effective energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions at lower cost without producing additional environmental and safety problems.
Endless Taxpayer Subsidies
According to the Congressional Research Service, federal spending on energy research and development has disproportionately favored nuclear power.
From 1948 to 1998, 59% of R&D funding ($66 billion in constant 1999 dollars) went to nuclear power, 23% to fossil energy ($26 billion), 11% to renewable energy ($12 billion), and 7% to energy efficiency ($8 billion).
Despite this massive infusion of federal funds (and billions more in indirect subsidies, such as the Price Anderson limits on nuclear industry liability for accidents), nuclear power has not become a major player in our national energy mix. Today, nuclear power contributes approximately 8% of total U.S. energy supply and 20% of electricity production.
Nuclear Power is not Competitive
In the U.S., 27 reactors have been closed after operating for an average of 15 years. This amounts to 37% of the licensed and projected lifetime of U.S. reactors. This empirical trend flies in the face of the industry’s claims of reliability and challenges the industry’s assertions that the technology, through relicensing and new construction, is a viable strategy for addressing climate change.
More shutdowns are predicted with the continued restructuring of the electric power industry. According to the U.S. Department of Energy’s 2000 Annual Energy Outlook, 13 nuclear units are expected to be retired early in its reference case projection, while no nuclear units are expected to become operable by 2020. The U.S. DOE predicts that nuclear power's share of electricity generation will fall from 20% currently to just 10% in 2020.
In 1998, the Washington International Energy Group, an energy industry analyst, released an update to its study: Nuclear Power Plants and Implications of Early Shutdown for Future Natural Gas Demand. The report evaluated the performance of nuclear power plants and found that among the 72 reactor sites (each site includes one or more reactors), 34 sites will likely not be able to compete in their deregulated regional market. The owners of six reactors at these sites have already announced permanent shutdowns.
The Business Community and the Public Agree: Nuclear Power is no Longer a Viable Technology
The view from electric utility boardrooms is not encouraging for the technology once considered “too cheap to meter.”
According to Energy Industry Outlook 2000, an annual survey of industry executives published by Hagler Bailly, only 54% believe that nuclear power can compete in “a price conscious market” and 75% agree that no new nuclear reactors will be ordered in the near future.
A 1999 national opinion survey commissioned by the Sustainable Energy Coalition found that 6 out of 10 individuals opposed the construction of nuclear reactors in the U.S. Given a choice for electricity, 62% said they would pick renewable energy, 18% natural gas, 6% nuclear and 5% coal. Over two-thirds said that an accident similar to that at Three Mile Island was likely to happen again in the U.S.
The Bailout of Failed Nuclear Investments is Delaying Meaningful Competition in the Electric Power Industry
Electric utilities are receiving bailouts from utility ratepayers to pay for their uncompetitive nuclear investments as electric power industry deregulates. These bailouts are slowing and potential preventing the development of workable competitive electricity markets by barring potential competitors from the market.
Many utilities have already been granted billions for so-called “stranded costs,” primarily investments in uneconomical nuclear plants. The assessment of mandatory ratepayer fees for these costs delays meaningful competition by reducing the shopping credit available to consumers to seek other electricity suppliers.
The nuclear bailout will likely dwarf the Savings and Loan debacle. A study by the Safe Energy Communication Council, The Great Ratepayer Robbery: How Utilities are Making Out Like Bandits at the Dawn of Deregulation, concludes that estimates of stranded costs in a mere 11 states total over $112 billion.
Nuclear Power Industry Propaganda
The nuclear industry has been attempting to recast nuclear power as an environmentally friendly technology and a viable solution to climate change. This new media campaign is rife with falsehoods. In reaction to the egregious inaccuracies and half-truths of the campaign, more than a dozen environmental groups have brought legal challenges against the nuclear industry.
With an annual budget of $28.5 million, the Nuclear Energy Institute spends millions each year attempting to revive the nuclear power industry. However, in December 1998, acting on a formal complaint by 15 environmental, consumer, public policy and business organizations, the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus ruled that NEI’s advertisements were inaccurate and should be discontinued. In the first decision ever by the NAD on electricity product advertising, the ad watchdog called on the NEI to terminate its advertisements to “avoid any potential for consumer confusion and that broad, unqualified claims that nuclear energy is ‘environmentally clean’ or produces electricity ‘without polluting the environment’ be discontinued.”
http://www.sustainableenergy.org/resources/technologies/nuclear.htm Related:
Community urges war criminal to give himself up and resign!
He is telling other people to be responsible yet he has committed war crimes against humanity amongst other criminal acts and is not in any position to dictate to the Australian people. Why would people listen? Who would trust a criminal? Get out of the House!
http://adelaide.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/45019
Parrot Press
Comments
Display the following comment