Up In Arms, But Not Nuclear Arms... yet

Some interesting banter on the last post so I though I would flow with it. It seems that the pro-nuclear camp is really really into nuclear power. It is not just on forms of media that I mentioned in the last post, but on blogs as well.
I was wondering why certain people were pushing nuclear so hard. Then I came across some of the profit driven facts of the “new” nuclear age….

Profit.

Under recent federal legislation, the nuclear industry has been handed $13 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to build a new generation of nuclear plants. How is this corporate welfare letting the market decide? How is it allowing for fair competition for other forms of energy production? In addition, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry lobby, has hired the former head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to try to “greenwash” nuclear power’s dirty and dangerous image. This has been seen on the cover of Time magazine as well as the Economist.

The Pitch
Under the The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) is the Bush Administration’s plan for expanding the nuclear power industry in the U.S. and around the globe. If President Bush’s plan works as advertised, it would reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, improve the environment by reducing CO2 emissions, encourage clean development around the world and reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation.

More Profit
To achieve this President Bush’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership would include: a new generation of nuclear plants in the U.S., the reprocessing of nuclear waste and a fast reactor demonstration project that would use the reprocessed waste as fuel. Under GNEP, nuclear nations would sell non nuclear countries reactors and provide the nuclear fuel and then accept the radioactive waste back for reprocessing and eventually disposal. Profit selling, profit receiving and I’m sure there would be profit in maintenance as well.

Reduce Dependence On Foreign Oil How?
Expanding the use of nuclear power will have little or no impact on the U.S. addiction to foreign oil. Nuclear power plants generate two things: electricity and the radioactive materials to produce nuclear weapons. Since less than 3 percent of U.S. electricity is generated by oil, nuclear power’s role in addressing U.S. oil addiction is extremely limited.
The U.S. Department of Energy expects that percentage to drop to 1.68 percent by 2025.

Where Are The Miraculous Cost Savings?
General Electric (GE) promised to construct its new Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) in Japan for 1500/kw. The actual cost for the first reactor was $3,282/kw, more than twice what GE promised more than twice what the nuclear corporations’ claim that they can afford. Areva’s Evolutionary Pressurized Reactor (EPR) has not yet received approval in the U.S. However, construction of the EPR in Finland, only begun in 2005, is already a year over schedule. Due to major construction problems with the Finish reactor, Areva was expected to lose as much as $922 million of income in 2006.

From 1966 to 1972, Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS) operated a commercial reprocessing facility in West Valley, NY. After a four-year shutdown, NFS determined that it was too expensive to bring the facility up to regulatory standards and so abandoned the site. The Department of Energy (DOE) originally estimated that the cleanup effort at the site could be completed by about 1990. However, in May 2001, the US General Accounting Office, (GAO) determined that clean up was not nearly complete and would take up to forty years to finish. GAO calculated that the West Valley cleanup costs would total about $4.5 billion.

Oh but wait there is miracle new technology…

FAST REACTORS
According the President Bush’s GNEP scheme, after the radioactive wastes are reprocessed they would be converted in reactor fuel for use in Advancer Burner Reactors (ABR). While these reactors do not even exist they are conceptually similar to fast breeder reactors without the uranium blanket for “breeding” plutonium. However, the experience with “fast breeder” reactors in the U.S. and elsewhere has shown that they are expensive and dangerous.

In November 1955, the first U.S. “power reactor” ever to produce electricity, the EBR-1, (experimental breeder reactor) melted down during testing. The public was not made aware of this meltdown until Lewis Strauss, head of the Atomic Energy Commission and the man who claimed nuclear power would be “too cheap to meter” was confronted by the Wall Street Journal and had to admit his ignorance of the accident.

Not to be dissuaded by the meltdown of the EBR-1, The Power Reactor Development Corporation, a consortium of 35 utilities headed by Detroit Edison forged ahead with the first commercial fast breeder reactor. The Fermi reactor was to be a scaled up version of the EBR-1. On October 6, 1966 the Fermi reactor also melted down. Oh, but those who push nukes say you can’t use examples from the past.

Things have changed. Really?

The U.S. is not the only country to experience accidents with fast breeder reactors. Even the highly touted French nuclear program proved incapable of making the technology work safely and economically. France’s “Superphenix” was permanently shut down in 1987 after leaking 20 tons of sodium coolant. The $10 billion dollar reactor only operated for 278 days in its 11-year history.

Japan has had no better luck with its fast breeder program. The Japanese “Monju” fast breeder reactor was shutdown in 1995 after three tons of sodium leaked causing reactor to over heat and burning holes in cooling pipes.

In addition to these major costs, there is also the uncalculated cost of maintenance, refurbishing, and then dismantling these very large facilities. Who do you think is paying for all of this and the corporate handouts and the guaranteed loans? Sorry, it’s you, the taxpayer. And no it can’t be built into the consumer cost, because then it couldn’t compete with oil, coal and current electric power.

The Danger
In his 2003 State of the Union Address President Bush claimed that “ the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.” Unfortunately, Mr. Bush’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership would only increase this danger. Dirty bombs are a dangerous threat in the hands of our enemies. What are dirty bombs made of? How much nuclear waste is transported via,: rail, highway, and waterway that is susceptible to falling into the hands of those who threaten our nation?

There is a direct correlation between nuclear power plants and nuclear bombs. In 2004, a report from Jane’s Intelligence Review concluded that an increase in the number of nuclear power plants worldwide would directly increase the risks associated with nuclear weapons proliferation. For India to create their nuclear weapon, they used reprocessed plutonium from radioactive fuel.

Then There Is Chernobyl
This caused enormous damage to the economy, environment, wildlife and humans. To whitewash this is to ignore the human suffering that resulted. These are real lives, real people. Not just statistics and an anomaly. The problem we call Chernobyl is not a thing of the past. Plans are now being made to export large amounts of highly radioactive waste to sites of nuclear accidents like Mayak, Semipalatinsk and even to Chernobyl. These plans are supported by the UN International Atomic Energy Agency. I seem to remember these guys being used as a source by someone in the last post's comments, sounds like they have peoples' best interest in mind?!?! But not to be dissuaded, I'm sure those in favor of nuclear energy have no problems ignoring these problematic implications and are happy to push forward with their embrace of nuclear energy, ignoring the facts and concerns of others (and being deeply suspicious of the integrity and intellectual ability of experts in the field who have concerns) but for those who are interested in learning more, I have linked to some interesting articles below.

Further Reading

Mirage and Oasis

An American Chernobyl

The Economics of Nuclear Power

Nuclear Fact Sheet

High Level Radioactive Fact Sheet

No Such Thing As A Safe Dose Of Radiation

Is Nuclear The Answer?

Going Nuclear?

In my recent perusal of talk radio, sites and newspapers (of a certain ideological perspective) I was surprised to see the promotion of nuclear power as a way of meeting our future energy needs. Maybe it is just because I lived through the end of the Cold War and witnessed the destruction of Chernobyl, but nuclear energy just doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Therefore, I was quite surprised to find out that going nuclear (outside of Iran of course) is quite in vogue. When dealing with this form of energy, there remain some serious issues that need to be addressed and thought through. The article below goes into more detail.

Just Say No
Nuclear power is complicated, dangerous, and definitely not the answer
BY STEVEN COHEN
08 Aug 2006

If the media and the New York Times editorial page are any guide, nuclear power is the new green-energy option being embraced by environmentalists. This is not a new idea. The first mainstream statement of the "nuclear option" came from a 2003 report by MIT professors John Deutch and Ernest Moniz, "The Future of Nuclear Power."

As the duo's press release put it: "The nuclear option should be retained precisely because it is an important carbon-free source of power ... Taking nuclear power off the table as a viable alternative will prevent the global community from achieving long-term gains in the control of carbon dioxide emissions."

While I share their alarm at our failure to address the problem of overabundant greenhouse-gas emissions, I am equally alarmed by their willingness to accept this dangerous, complicated, and politically controversial technology as a fix for our looming climate crisis.

Let's begin with dangerous, setting aside the obvious problems raised by Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. In the past few years, we have seen the horror that suicide bombers set loose in restaurants from Tel Aviv to Baghdad, and the danger of jets flying into skyscrapers. Do we really want to see what happens if a terrorist attacks a nuclear power plant? Are we so arrogant as to believe that these facilities are not already tempting, and vulnerable, targets?

Let's move on to complicated. The primary waste product of nuclear power, spent fuel rods, remains toxic for thousands of years. We do not yet know how to detoxify these waste products and, despite 20-some years of trying, we have not yet been able to establish a long-term repository anywhere in the United States.

Money is not the issue. We have the resources to build a nuclear-waste storage facility -- under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, customers of nuclear-generated electricity have been paying a $0.001 per kilowatt-hour fee on their electric bills since 1983. Utilities pass the money into an account that has generated $24 billion over the years. Despite assurances that the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada will last longer than the waste will be toxic, serious failings in storage technology and the risks of transportation have resulted in widespread opposition. Today, our nuclear waste goes into "spent fuel pools" at nuclear power plants like the one at Indian Point, just 35 miles north of New York City.

If the problem of detoxifying waste is beyond current technology -- which is why we need to store it for thousands of years -- what about the technology of power generation? The MIT study acknowledges that no power plant can be made risk-free. In reality, all technology carries risks. When we drive on an interstate highway, we face the risk of a crash. We accept the risk because it is relatively low, and because the effect of the risk is localized. A mistake in a nuclear power plant, however, can cause long-standing, widespread damage to people and ecosystems. Just ask the people who survived Chernobyl. The risk may be low, but the potential impact is high.

That leads to the politics. No one wants to host the nuclear-waste repository. No one wants a nuclear power plant next door. This is not an engineering or economic issue, but one of politics. In an increasingly crowded and interdependent world, people have grown more sensitive about questions of land-use development. Environmental justice has also reached the political stage, because the rich are better able to defend themselves against environmental insults than the poor. In the United States, local politics in many places has become the politics of land use and development. If we can't site Wal-Marts without a lengthy battle, why does anyone seriously think that we will be able to site the hundreds of new nuclear power plants that may be necessary to meet our energy needs without increasing greenhouse-gas emissions?

Moreover, why waste our time and effort on a so-called solution to climate change and high oil prices that has no real chance of gaining political traction? The largest impacts of global warming lie in the future, and are global in scope. But the problem of a nuclear accident would be comparatively local, and would potentially last for decades or centuries. The American political process is designed to respond to intense, local issues -- that is why constructing even one nuclear power plant is a non-starter.

I agree that the answer to reducing carbon-dioxide emissions and reducing energy costs is to develop new technology. I agree that the need for a technological fix is urgent. The problem of energy prices and global climate change is real, and reaching crisis proportions. The American government should start a major research and development effort to create new power sources that are small-scale, decentralized, environmentally safe, and feasible in the political climate of the U.S. in the first decade of the 21st century.

Despite the promises of a previous generation, nuclear power never became "too cheap to meter." Rather, it became a discredited, mid-20th century mistake. Raising this issue is a distraction from the real work we need to undertake. We need to put our brain power to work on a way of reducing energy prices and emissions that can actually be implemented here in the United States -- and very, very soon.

Some relevant links:
The Dangers of Nuclear Power

Nuclear power isn't clean, it's dangerous

Nuclear Energy Fact Sheet

Majora Carter - Green is the New Black

In an emotionally charged talk, Majora Carter explains her fight for environmental justice in the South Bronx. This MacArthur-winning activist shows how minority neighborhoods have suffered most from flawed urban policy, and energetically shares her grassroots efforts to "green the ghetto." Her talk from the heart drew a spontaneous standing ovation at TED, and has proved equally moving online. As blogger Mike Maupuia records: "So I'm sitting at my desk at work, earplugs inserted, and tears running down my face. I'm watching this video of Majora Carter's presentation at TED, and thinking ... I love this woman! But don't listen to me ... go listen to her!"

Hillary Part 2

John Edwards is having a hayday with these videos, and I must say, I do enjoy them...

Iranian dissidents freed from 'perverse' ban

By Christopher Booker

In a street off London's Chancery Lane on Friday 400 Iranians celebrated a court victory that has left the British Government in a deep double embarassment. Not only were ministers found to have acted illegally in outlawing the chief Iranian opposition group, the People's Mujahideen of Iran (PMOI), as a terrorist organisation; they now face searching questions from their EU colleagues as to why they have twice incited the European Council to a unique act of defiance by ignoring a ruling from the European Court of Justice.

At the heart of this shameful story lies one of the most baffling riddles of contemporary politics: why should our Government have repeatedly acted in breach of the law, to appease the murderous regime in Teheran, which has played a key part in arming the insurgents who are killing British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?

This murky tale goes back to 2001 when Jack Straw, as home secretary, branded the PMOI, alongside al-Qa'eda, as a terrorist organisation. As Straw himself admitted in 2006, he did this "at the behest of the Teheran regime". The PMOI is part of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), backed by millions of Iranians who want to see their country transformed into a democratic, secular state, freed from the tyranny of the mullahs and the murder squads of their Revolutionary Guards, who have shot, mutilated or hanged more than 100,000 supporters of the NCRI since 1979.

In 2002, at British instigation, the EU added the PMOI to its own list of terrorist groups, a decision that last December was finally ruled "unlawful" by the ECJ. Unprecedentedly, in January, again at British instigation, the Council of the European Union agreed to defy the ruling of its own court, a decision it confirmed last June - even though by then the Foreign Office admitted the Revolutionary Guards were actively aiding the insurgents fighting British forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In August, 35 MPs and peers, led by former ministers, including Lord Waddington, a former home secretary, asked the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Committee, a branch of the High Court, to rule that the proscription of the PMOI was unlawful. Their lawyers produced a mass of evidence to show that the PMOI was not a terrorist organisation. The Home Office could produce no evidence to show that it was anything other than a non-violent movement campaigning for democracy.

On Friday all three judges ruled in the PMOI's favour, finding that the Home Office had ignored important facts, misunderstood the law and reached a "perverse" decision. It told the Home Secretary to lay an order before Parliament removing the PMOI from its list. Home Officer minister Tom McNulty weakly responded that the Government would seek leave to appeal.
The ruling deepens Britain's embarrassment in Europe, where it has twice successfully incited the EU to defy the verdict of its own court. In June, when Britain persuaded the Council to uphold its earlier decision, this was against the wishes of more than 1,000 politicians of all parties across the EU, including 234 MEPs and the Italian and Danish parliaments.

The fact that our Government has been shown to have acted illegally all along, to appease a regime which glories in hanging its political opponents in public, should persuade the rest of the EU finally to recognise how grotesquely it has been misled by British ministers, and to reverse its shameful action in line with the robust ruling of a British court. A good day for British justice, but one that leaves Mr Straw and his colleagues with some very uncomfortable questions to answer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/02/nbook102.xml

Government ordered to end 'perverse' terror listing of Iran opposition

The Guardian
Clare Dyer, legal editor

The government has been ordered to remove the main Iranian opposition organisation from a list of banned terrorist groups by a panel that called the decision to list the group "perverse".

The Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC) ruled yesterday that the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, acted illegally in refusing to take the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI) off the proscribed terrorist blacklist drawn up under the 2000 Terrorist Act.

Courts rarely call government decisions perverse, and the panel, chaired by former high court judge Sir Harry Ognall and cleared to see secret material, said: "We recognise that a finding of perversity is uncommon." It added: "We believe, however, that this commission is in the (perhaps unusual) position of having before it all of the material that is relevant to this decision."

The Home Office minister Tony McNulty said he was disappointed by the decision. "We don't accept it and we intend to appeal.

"The government adopted a cautious approach in relation to the de-proscription of the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran. I remain convinced that where terrorism is concerned the rights of the law-abiding majority and the overriding need to protect the public...must lead us to take such a cautious approach."

The case was taken to POAC by 35 cross-party senior MPs and peers including a former home secretary, Lord Waddington, former solicitor general, Lord Archer, and a retired law lord, Lord Slynn.

In a 144-page judgment, the commission ruled that in deciding to maintain the ban the Home Office had misunderstood the law, ignored important facts and reached a "perverse" decision.

The panel concluded that action by the PMOI against Iranian military and security targets had effectively ended in 2001, that the organisation maintained no military structure, that it had disarmed in 2003, and that it had not attempted to re-arm.

The organisation, which campaigns for the replacement of the Iranian regime by a secular democracy, drew the world's attention to Iran's nuclear programme in 2002.

Lord Corbett, chairman of the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom, said after the ruling: "I now invite the former home secretary and foreign secretary, Jack Straw, to apologise for the hurt and harm he has done to the Iranian resistance by his supine agreement to the demands of the mullahs.

"Today's decision signals that the Iranian resistance - demonised, vilified, unjustly labelled terrorist - wants no more than to help the people of Iran to rid themselves of the misrule of the mullahs."

Maryam Rajavi, president-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which includes PMOI, described the ruling as "a magnificent victory for justice". She added: "We have always said the fundamental solution to the Iranian crisis is neither foreign military intervention nor appeasement. The solution is democratic change by the Iranian people and resistance."