I have read Bill McKibben and heard him speak. His main point about nuclear power seems to be that nuclear power will go because of the price. In this video from The Daily Beast on December 11, 2012, the question asked him by a reader was "What is your opinion of nuclear energy?" It is a short video, 2:10 minutes. McKibben comments that it "wasn't really the environmentalists who put the kibosh on nuclear power, it was pretty much Wall Street." Later in his response, he says, "So my guess is that nuclear energy will be a small part of the answer here. People have a variety of things like thorium reactors that they contnue to talk about and maybe some break will come of it. Will be dumb of environmentalists to be resistant to every possibility there because we're gonna need a lot of help if we're going to have any hope of making the math of all this work out."
From Safe Energy Analyst, May 2016, by Russell Lowes and Edward Mainland: "Hansen Is Wrong About Nuclear Power" "Nuclear, is a drain on our ability to deal with climate solutions, energy needs" "Simply put, the nation, and the planet, can neither gain traction against global warming nor solve its energy problems practically and cost effectively, with nuclear energy. The nation and the world would in fact be set back by the extreme additional cost, compared to a better planned energy strategy. That alternative strategy includes solar, wind, energy efficiency, storage and energy management technologies, plus a rapid phase-down of fossil and nuclear energy."
"We have only a limited amount of dollars to put into energy. When you put a dollar into nukes, you get about four kWh. When you put that dollar into centralized solar, you get about seven kWh. Rooftop solar gets you about eight kWh. Wind delivers about nine kWh. Energy efficiency delivers twenty-nine kWh saved for every dollar spent
The U.S. has limited capital resources for energy. They shouldn't be wasted. When you put a dollar into nuclear energy, instead of putting the same dollar into one of the cheaper options, for example wind energy, that dollar would cause only four kWh to be delivered to ratepayers, versus seven for wind. This creates a deficit of three kWh, that now needs to be recovered from this mismanaged dollar.
As Amory Lovins said, If you buy more nuclear plants you're going to get about two to ten times less climate solution per dollar and you'll get it about 20 times slower than if you buy instead the cheaper faster stuff.'" Nuclear energy is plainly a boondoggle, one that is made even more expensive when you consider its subsidy costs, compared to the other options covered here. It would be one thing for James Hansen and others to consider nuclear energy if it gave you extra value, compared to the other options. Instead, it is a financial drain on our ability to deal with climate solutions and energy needs. It is time to nuke the nuclear option."
The Nuclear Power Industry, Money, Lobbyists, Congress, President Obama
From February 17, 2015, "Platts Nuclear Conference Attended by Companies Spending Millions on Lobbying" "Since January 1, 2013, the top five U.S. nuclear power operating companies and the Nuclear Energy Institute have spent a combined $60.4 million on lobbying Congress and federal agencies."
On January 28, 2016, your Senate colleagues, including three progressive Democrat Senators - Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, and Sherrod Brown - shockingly and disgracefully voted overwhelmingly to pass "Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 3021 to S.Amdt. 2953 to S. 2012(Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015) Statement of Purpose: To enable civilian research and development of advanced nuclear energy technologies by private and public institutions, to expand theoretical and practical knowledge of nuclear physics, chemistry, and materials science. Vote Counts: YEAs 87 NAYs 4 Not Voting 9". The nays: three Democrat senators - Edward Markey, Mazie Hirono, Jeff Merkley and Republican Mike Lee. [You were in Iowa and didn't vote.]
Here is the text of bill S.2461- Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act. Here is what Beyond Nuclear says about it: "The bi-partisan Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act that passed last week as an amendment to the still under discussion Senate Energy Policy Modernization Act, would risk squandering tax dollars 'to accelerate research and development of advanced fission reactor systems, nuclear fusion systems, and reactor systems for space exploration.' It would also put these projects on a dangerous four-year licensing fast track that risks cutting safety corners to lower costs to the industry and would undercut public due process. Ironically, goals also include 'Ensuring public safety,' and 'Reducing the environmental impact of nuclear energy,' which could be far better achieved by closing nuclear plants and focusing on expanding renewable energy."
Most recently, April 2016, there is a new very heinous, bill in the Senate that is trying to make it so that there will be no mandatory licensing hearings for so-called advanced small modular nuclear reactors. "'New Nuclear' lobby working to weaken powers of USA's Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)"....
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
