Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

AP: U.S. Grants 1st License for Major Nuclear Plant in 30 Years

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-25-06 11:55 AM
Original message
AP: U.S. Grants 1st License for Major Nuclear Plant in 30 Years
Edited on Sun Jun-25-06 11:58 AM by Dems Will Win
-snip-

Associated Press
Sunday, June 25, 2006; Page A10


ALBUQUERQUE -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued its first license for a major commercial nuclear facility in 30 years, allowing an international consortium to build what will be the nation's first private fuel source for commercial nuclear power plants.

Construction of the $1.5 billion National Enrichment Facility, under review for the past 2 1/2 years, could begin in August, and the plant could be ready to sell enriched uranium by early 2009, said James Ferland, president of the consortium of nuclear companies, Louisiana Energy Services.

...

Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), a longtime supporter of nuclear power, said the license is important not only for Louisiana Energy Services but also "for what this facility will mean for the renaissance of nuclear energy in this country."

Ferland said the nuclear power industry watched the plant's licensing process closely, viewing it as a bellwether for license applications for new nuclear power plants.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

-snip-

Public Citizen is rightly opposed to a new wave of nukes and the contamination that will be wrought by a new uranium enrichment plant:

-snip-

BACKGROUND
A consortium of energy companies called Louisiana Energy Services (LES) is seeking to develop a new uranium enrichment plant in the continental United States. The LES consortium was formed in the late 1980s (at which time the group was composed of a somewhat different collection of partners), and assumed the name "Louisiana Energy Services" because the group originally intended to locate its new uranium enrichment plant in a rural area near the small town of Homer, Louisiana, but was ultimately forced to abandon these plans after protest from local groups who claimed that LES was guilty of environmental racism for choosing a site populated by minorities. In fact, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), rejected LESs petition for a license (its first and only denial of such a license) on these grounds. More recently, LES backed out of another potential site that it had been scouting for the development of a uranium enrichment plant: Trousdale County, Tennessee. Here, the consortium was met with fierce opposition from local environmental groups. The Tennessee site was formerly owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), a quasi-governmental public utility company.

After being pushed out of two other areas by local residents fueled by indignation, LES is back at it, trying to push its hazardous plant on another unfortunate rural community. This country and these communities have no need for another polluting uranium enrichment plant.

WHO IS LES?
The LES consortium is led by Urencoitself a consortium of British, Dutch, and German government and corporate entitiesand also includes the construction firm Fluor-Daniel and the energy industry giants Exelon Corp., Entergy Corp., Duke Energy, and Westinghouse Electric Co. Exelon, Entergy, and Duke are public utility-holding companies that own and operate nuclear power reactors, and are in consultation with the NRC to develop new nuclear reactors. Ownership in a domestic uranium enrichment facility would significantly reduce fuel costs for their current and, potentially, future nuclear power stations. Exelon has the largest nuclear fleet in the nation, operating ten nuclear power stations with a total of seventeen reactors. Entergy operates eight stations with a total of ten reactors, and Duke owns three stations with a total of seven reactors. Westinghouse is owned by British Nuclear Fuels, Ltd. (BNFL), and is the worlds largest manufacturer of nuclear reactors.

Each of these companies has an interest in greater ownership of nuclear fuel chain, and this is why they have collectively formed LES, which exists solely for the purpose of developing a new domestic uranium enrichment facility. Increasing the capacity of domestic enriched uranium production merely serves the profit interests of these corporations.

A NEW URANIUM ENRICHMENT PLANT IS NOT NEEDED
The nuclear power industry is dependent upon "enriched" uranium as fuel for its nuclear reactors, which require fuel with a higher proportion of the isotope uranium-235, relative to uranium-238, than that which is found in natural sources. The enrichment process increases the proportion of uranium-235, making the substance usable as fuel in nuclear reactors.

The LES consortium is competing with USECthe only domestic producer of enriched uranium as fuel for nuclear power reactorsto build another uranium enrichment facility in the States. USEC, a former government-owned company known as U.S. Enrichment Corporation, was privatized in 1998, and has since suffered from serious financial woes. Against the wishes of the U.S. Government, USEC was forced to close its Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (which had been operating at one-quarter capacity) in Ohio, in June of 2000, leaving its Paducah, Kentucky plant (which is owned by the U.S. Department of Energy and leased by USEC) as the only uranium enrichment facility in the country, which runs at about fifty-percent capacity. But now, USEC, in partnership with the DOE, is seeking to develop a new uranium enrichment plant to replace its aging Paducah plant.

USEC, now a private corporation, provides the lions share (about 68 percent in 2001) of enriched uranium to domestic nuclear power reactors. The remainder of enriched uranium is imported, and is subject to tariffs. But the large nuclear power companiesincluding Exelon, Entergy, and Duke, which are part of the LES consortiumwant to secure ownership of a cheap, domestic source of enriched nuclear fuel so that they may further monopolize all stages of the nuclear fuel chain.

The foreign partners in the consortium also have an interest in sharing ownership in a plant in the U.S. Urenco, for example, must now pay an extra 3.7 percent duty on its exports to the U.S., as ordered in early 2002 by the Commerce Department and the U.S. International Trade Commission, which found that Urenco and other foreign nuclear fuels providers had been dumping their products into the U.S. market at unfairly cheap prices.

The development of a new uranium enrichment facility would only serve to pad the profits of nuclear power utilities and nuclear fuels and services providers. The industry, no doubt, hopes that a new, vertically-integrated uranium enrichment operation would propel the development of new nuclear power plants by reducing the cost of fuel and making new nuclear plants more economically feasible.

THE HAZARDS OF URANIUM ENRICHMENT PLANTS
The nuclear power industry has engaged in a campaign to portray itself as a "green" source of power, claiming that its plants have only negligible emissions relative to the fossil fuel-burning energy plants. But the old saying holds true: "There is no such thing as a free lunch."

In addition to the toxic and radioactive waste that nuclear reactors producewhich is, of course, a very serious problem in its own rightthe production of fuel for nuclear power plants is, in fact, an extremely energy-intensive process that is wrought with dangerous effluent pollutants at every step of the way. From mining to milling to conversion to enrichment, the nuclear fuel chain is dirty, dangerous, and potentially deadly.

Enrichment is the final step in the refinement process, required to convert uranium into fuel usable in commercial nuclear reactors. Prior to enrichment, uranium must be converted to a chemical form, uranium hexafluoride (UF6), which is both chemically toxic and radioactive. Moreover, UF6 can release a highly toxic hydrofluoric acid if it comes into contact with moisture. Enrichment facilities have had several serious accidents involving uranium hexafluoride. One such accident at the old Sequoyah Fuels conversion plant (which was in operation until 1993) in Gore, Oklahoma killed one worker and hospitalized 42 other workers and 100 nearby residents. Transportation of UF6 to and from the plant creates an additional hazard, which is compounded by the fact that the chosen site is accessible only by way of secondary, two-lane highways, which are not suitable for heavy truck traffic, and increase the likelihood of an accident, which could result in a serious and immediate health hazard to area residents.

Uranium enrichment facilities have a tarnished history of worker exploitation and extreme environmental irresponsibility. Lockheed Martin and Martin Marietta, operators of the Paducah plant in the 1980s and 1990s, are currently subject to a massive class-action lawsuit filed by former employees at the plant, who claim that they are suffering from illnesses and diseases caused by their exposure to toxic chemicals and radiation on the job. The plaintiffs claim that they were not made aware of the degree of danger involved in their occupations. On October 30, 2000, President Bill Clinton signed the "Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act," which provides compensation to former DOE nuclear-complex workers and their families for medical expenses and suffering due to illness caused by the hazards to which they were unknowingly exposed in their occupations.

In addition to the hazards to which workers at Paducah were unknowingly exposed, the plants pollutants have also put the general public in harms way and defiled the local environment. According to a report in the Washington Post, the Paducah plant is responsible for the following abuses and acts of negligence:

Radioactive contaminants from the plant routinely spilled into ditches and eventually seeped into creeks, a state-owned wildlife area, and private wells.

Former workers at the Paducah plant claim that waste from the facility was deliberately dumped into nearby fields, abandoned buildings, and a landfill not licensed for hazardous waste.

Between 1952 and 1987, 61,000 pounds of radioactive uranium flowed out of the plant with wastewater and into the Ohio River.

In 1988, wells near the Paducah plant were discovered to be contaminated with technetium and chemical carcinogens, which prompted a multimillion-dollar groundwater cleanup under the oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency. (Eventual cleanup of the Paducah complex is expected to cost $240 billion and take at least 75 years.)
Compounding these flagrant acts of environmental irresponsibility is the massive amount of toxic and radioactive waste that such facilities produce on a day-to-day basis. The uranium enrichment facilities at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Paducah, Kentucky; and Portsmouth, Ohio have produced a total of 700,000 metric tons of depleted uraniuma radioactive and toxic byproduct of nuclear fuel productionover the past half-century. This waste now sits in some 50,000 steel cylinders, each weighing about thirteen tons, stacked in huge piles outside the enrichment plants, where it has the potential to enter into the environment through leaks in the cylinders.

CONCLUSION
While the nuclear power industry has been in steep decline since the 1980s, the industry and its allies in the federal governmentnow buoyed by the pro-nuclear Bush Administrationare hoping to promote a "nuclear renaissance." For this reason, giants among the nuclear power corporationssuch as Exelon, Entergy, and Dukeare investing in their own uranium enrichment facility through the LES consortium as a way to ensure a cheap source of fuel for their reactors. Their speculation into the uranium enrichment business is based on the assumption that new nuclear power plants (which will, of course, require great amounts of enriched uranium as fuel) will come on line in the near future. A new uranium enrichment plant would not only have disastrous environmental consequences in its immediate location, but it would, in fact, feed the nuclear power industry, which produces the most hazardous waste known to humankind.

We do not need to create a nuclear fuel facility to add to the mess created by the nuclear power industry. There is no reason to capitulate to this dying industry, desperately grasping at any opportunity to sustain itself with no regard for the extreme hazards it creates. We should invest in clean, safe, and renewable energy sourcessuch as wind and solarin addition to increasing energy efficiency and practicing conservation. This is the path toward a sustainable energy source that will provide for generations to come as it provides for us.

http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/newnu...

-snip-

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NMDemDist2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-25-06 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. crap! this is 80 miles from my new home. luckily? it's downwind n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-25-06 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I'd rather live near that then to a coal plant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Posteritatis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-25-06 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. You and me both. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMDemDist2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-25-06 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. being a westerner, I know very little about coal plants other than the
mess they make mining the stuff
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pitohui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-25-06 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
16. well you all are welcome to it
i remember vaguely when they got chased out of homer, i think it's telling that they first attempted to force this on poor communities who were supposed to be grateful for the opportunity to be the next chernobyl if anything went wrong

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #2
29. No, you wouldn't. I live 80 miles from Three Mile Island, and
remember when we were on alert to EVACUATE.

Don't get that from coal plants (and I was born in coal country and lived in the real shadow of Bethlehem Steel).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mbperrin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-25-06 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
5. We're an hour away. Downwind and downstream. But live in Texas,
so had no say in the permitting process.

Only good thing is, after they ruin whatever groundwater the oilfield didn't, is that T. Boone Pickens and Tom Craddick won't want to steal that water anymore and ship it to Dallas.

Choice is not coal or nuclear. There are already hundreds of windmills around here sending power to Florida, while TXU is building, yep, another NATURAL GAS plant during the period of highest gas prices in history. Course with the passalong on energy costs, our electric is now 14.8 cents per kwh - top that anywhere if you can!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sadie5 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-25-06 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Cheney's doing
As I remember, directly after the charlatans were installed in office, the Nuke energy talk started with a piece here and there in newspapers. I knew then that it would happen. Remember all of those nuclear protest of the 70s, with one led by Amy Carter. How was it bad in the 70s, but good today?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-25-06 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. technology comes a long way in 30 years.
That would be my guess, anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mbperrin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-25-06 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Actually, if you shop hard enough, you can find a little town of fewer
than 10,000 people who will take ANYTHING if someone promises them it will make things better. Germany is decommissioning all their plants, and there has never been one in history that didn't leak - the only nuclear device we need is prudently located 93 million miles away, right where it belongs - just don't stand outside too long unprotected!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-25-06 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Germany is building coal-fired plants to replace those reactors
And, totally unrelated to the burning of coal, the polar ice caps are melting. It's almost like there's some weird connection between CO2 and global warming <sarcasm>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mbperrin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-25-06 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Actually, they are also promoting solar and wind energy. They
installed enough solar panels last year to replace one nuke plant altogether.
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/2967...

Wind Power Growth Boosts German Green Energy Share

FRANKFURT - Germany's wind power expansion pushed renewable energy's share in overall electricity use up by nearly a fifth last year, official data showed on Tuesday.<snip>
The rise in green energy production helped to save around 70 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions last year. This was 10 million more than in 2003, the BWE statement said in the light of last week's launch of the Kyoto Protocol.

The ministry said Germany installed more solar power plants last year than any other country worldwide, triggering a 300 megawatt (MW) increase in installed capacity to 700 MW.

This is similar to the size of a small nuclear or coal-fired power station.

And I already said I prefer the windmills that are sprouting all over this area, but are for consumers in other states. Tell you what - let them build this thing 60 miles upwind and upstream from you, OK? You are more than welcome to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-25-06 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. What is the status of electrical energy storage facilities
that will allow wind and solar to provide electricity 24/7? How about the transmission lines from the major wind and solar producing areas to the rest of the country where it is more cloudy and less windy?

I like the idea of renewables and think that their use should be maximized, but their intermittency and regional concentration seem like real blocks to their replacing coal, nukes and natural gas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mbperrin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #11
25. The power from West Texas is being sent to Florida Power and Electric.
Texas Utilities are still building natural gas plants here. Apparently there's not a problem getting the power across the country. And the wind blows here 24/7.

As I said, in response to others elsewhere on this thread, if they want nuclear in their backyard, have it! Texas residents could not comment on this installation because it's just over the New Mexico line, so we had no legal standing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-25-06 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Actually, 700 MW of solar is ~200 MW of real-world energy
Solar energy has a 20-30% loading efficiency when you consider clouds and nighttime, as per calculations performed by NNadir on the Environmental board here at DU. 700 MW is how much power the solar panels produce at peak operating hours, not averaged out over the entire day.

So, Germany would have to triple their current solar energy production to equal one coal or nuke plant. This wouldn't remove the coal or nuclear plant from operation, though, because comparing solar and wind to coal and nuclear are like apples and oranges. Solar and wind compete with natural gas-fired plants, because they are PEAK LOAD operators. Nuclear and coal are BASE-LOAD operators. Building more solar panels or wind turbines remove natural-gas-fired plants from operation, not coal or nuclear plants. Without massive battery back-ups, wind and solar can't be considered base-load power sources.

NNadir summarized it better than I ever could here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... especially with regards to wind power in Europe in post #19.

"...Despite their being cited as the shining example of what can be accomplished with wind power, the Danish government has canceled plans for three offshore wind farms planned for 2008 and has scheduled the withdrawal of subsidies from existing sites. Development of onshore wind plants in Denmark has effectively stopped. Because Danish companies dominate the wind industry, however, the government is under pressure to continue their support. Spain began withdrawing subsidies in 2002. Germany reduced the tax breaks to wind power, and domestic construction drastically slowed in 2004. Switzerland also is cutting subsidies as too expensive for the lack of significant benefit. The Netherlands decommissioned 90 turbines in 2004. Many Japanese utilities severely limit the amount of wind-generated power they buy, because of the instability they cause. For the same reason, Ireland in December 2003 halted all new wind-power connections to the national grid. In early 2005, they were considering ending state support. In 2005, Spanish utilities began refusing new wind power connections. In 2004, Australia reduced the level of renewable energy that utilities are required to buy, dramatically slowing wind-project applications. On August 31, 2004, Bloomberg News reported that "the unstable flow of wind power in their networks" has forced German utilities to buy more expensive energy, requiring them to raise prices for the consumer.

A German Energy Agency study released in February 2005 after some delay stated that increasing the amount of wind power would increase consumer costs 3.7 times and that the theoretical reduction of greenhouse gas emissions could be achieved much more cheaply by simply installing filters on existing fossil-fuel plants. A similar conclusion was made by the Irish grid manager in a study released in February 2004 : "The cost of CO2 abatement arising from using large levels of wind energy penetration appears high relative to other alternatives.""
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #9
32. I lost all respect for European Greens when that was anounced.
When one's irrational fear of nuclear energy causes more coal plants being built one loose any right to call one's self an enviromentalist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pitohui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-25-06 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #5
19. well that is a shame
you cannot buy insurance to cover your loss in case your home is damaged or made uninhabitable by a nuclear meltdown at one of these plants, you will be expected to bear the financial burden yourself

the nuclear power plants back in the 70s specifically got legislation passed to exempt them from having to insure the homeowners if they damaged their property

that was enough to turn me off the whole idea, believe me, if an accident is never going to happen, nothing insurance companies like better than "free money for nothing"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Endangered Specie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-25-06 10:10 PM
Response to Original message
13. Title is a bit misleading...
Is this an actual power plant or a fuel enrichment facility or both :shrug:

Either way, its good news all around, looks like Nuclear is about to make a comeback.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-25-06 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Yay for more terrorist targets!!
Edited on Sun Jun-25-06 10:38 PM by w4rma
:sarcasm: :nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Endangered Specie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-25-06 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Name the last Nuclear facility struck by terrorists...
I suppose you are against building Federal office Buildings, other Tall buildings, Trains, Subways, Nightclubs and Buses... they have been hit by terrorists more often.

Try again.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pitohui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-25-06 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. no thanks to the terrorists
hello, 911, ua 93 was ten minutes away from 3 mile island when it went down! don't people remember anything?

in the 70s a man hijacked an airplane out of i believe birmingham and demanded $3 million dollars (real money in those days) not to fly it into a nuclear power plant in tennessee

it's all fun and games until somebody gets killed, i guessed, but the federal gov't has testified that containment buildings can't be secured against jet airliners being crashed into them -- they ARE hardened against the small stuff, like the cessna's flying into them, but we came pretty dang close twice already to having jets in nuclear power plants and i don't know how many times you want to play dodgeball w. a threat like this

a nightclub full of tourists getting blown up is not going to leave widespread devastation a la chernobyl for the next thousand years, it is sad and all that but hardly the same

if nuclear power plants were perfectly safe, why can't you buy homeowner's insurance to recover your financial losses in event that meltdown of a power plant destroys the value of your property, in event of an "event," you will lose everything financially and not get one penny from your homeowner's insurance

not one tiny dime

if you can't afford to lose everything, then why is it OK to put these in someone else's neighborhood and ask them to be at risk for losing everything?





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-25-06 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Thanks! I couldn't have said that any better, pitohui. (nt)
Edited on Sun Jun-25-06 11:13 PM by w4rma
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Endangered Specie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-25-06 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. Have you bothered to have a look at the chemicals around your house...
they pose more of a threat to you, and, more than likely, are produced at plants "in someone else's neighborhood", some of which have been known to blow up and kill a hell of a lot more than Chernobyl... feeling guilty yet?

Speaking of NIMBYism, many plants were not built directly or nearby large population centers, what happened is population centers expanded INTO the vicinity of power plants.

About that homeowners insurance bit, have you called them up to ask? just curious, I figured insurance companies will insure you for damn near anything (including J.Lo's ass). While your at it ask if they cover UFO's or Meteors.




Rest assured that the message you just typed was probably supplied in part by nuclear energy too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. Thank you for participating in this anti-nuclear thread
You are helping me out a lot. Would you please look out for more of my Dems Will Win Anti-Nuke threads in the future--and be sure to add posts like the above, as they help to prove my point.

Thanks so much!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viva_La_Revolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #17
28. silly! you don't need insurance
you'd be dead before the checks were put in the mail, so what's the point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #15
21. Flight 93 was on a bee line to Three Mile Island
when it went down on Sept. 11. Also, the government is predicting that the War on Terror is going to last decades. Unfortunately, in mock terrorist attacks conducted by the NRC, fully half of the terror gangs succeeded in gaining control of the plants safety systems. If they had been real instead of mock terrorists, control of plant safety could have lead to meltdowns or releases. Recommendations for increased security have included the National Guard being deployed around each plant to restrict land, water and air access.

On September 11, 2001, Mohammed Atta himself flew United Flight 11 right down the Hudson River, thankfully passing the Indian Point power plant. If Atta had decided to descend and had rammed the jetliner into the unhardened building housing the used fuel rod pool, the resulting catastrophe would have been centered in the Hudson Valley. The lethality of the resulting fire and its smoke, laced with the radioactivity of decades worth of fuel-rods, must be understood to comprehend what the threat of a terrorist attack is all about. Obviously, building thousands of nuclear plants would greatly increase the risk of terrorist attack or take-over.

In addition, Australia broke up a planned attack on a nuke plant!



Sydney nuclear plant targeted-police
By Michael Perry
Nov 14, 2005, 14:09


A nuclear reactor, located in the southwestern suburb of Lucas Heights, about 25 kilometers from the center of Sydney, August 26, 2000.
REUTERS/David Gray

SYDNEY (Reuters) - Eight Sydney men arrested on terrorism charges may have been planning a bomb attack against the city's nuclear reactor, police said on Monday.

Their Islamic spiritual leader, also charged with terrorism offences, told the men if they wanted to die for jihad they should inflict "maximum damage", according to a 21-page police court document.

...

Under the heading "Targets", police said three of the men were stopped near Sydney's Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in December 2004. A security gate lock had recently been cut.

...

"This training is consistent with the modus operandi of terrorists prior to attacks," the police document said, adding one man attended a training camp in Pakistan in 2001.

...

"If we want to die for jihad, we have to have maximum damage. Maximum damage. Damage their buildings, everything. Damage their lives," said Benbrika, according to the document.

...

Police said the Sydney men had bought chemicals to produce "peroxide-based explosives" and had a computer memory stick containing instructions in Arabic to make explosives.

Between August and November 2005 the Sydney men had bought or ordered hundreds of litres of chemicals, steel drums, batteries, plastic piping, circuit kits, stopwatches and ammunition.

http://www.ezilon.com/information/article_13754.shtml



So you should knock on wood when you say "Name the last Nuclear facility struck by terrorists..." Why? BECAUSE AL-QUEDA IS ALREADY TARGETING THEM!

Meanwhile, the top US climate modeler, Dr. James Hansen, gives us just 10 years to stabilize carbon emissions before warming is irreversible. If so, nuclear reactors are not the answer. Previously, it took 10 to 15 years just to get a single nuclear plant permitted, and that would only be worse today. In addition, the new pebble reactors would require tens of billions of research dollars and decades of R&D to commercialize. It would all be too late.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnOhioan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
23. BAD idea......
Edited on Mon Jun-26-06 10:32 AM by AnOhioan
Monies being spent to build nuclear facilities would be much better spent researching "true" alternative energy sources....solar, wind, biomass, etc.

But that would be in an ideal society...the bushbot government, being beholden to the corporations, will never do anything along those lines.

I have no faith whatsoever in nuclear power...Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and others less severe in scope have proven to me that the industry, by design, is dangerous.

Back in 2001, the Davis Besse facility in Ohio was discovered to have structural issues that almost led to a loss of coolant, with catastrophic consequences.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030922/bivens/3

I live in Ohio less than 100 miles from Davis Besse, and around 35 miles form the Perry Nuclear plant.

I would rejoice if these two plants were decommissioned along with suitable monies being put into R&D for sustainable power generation. This could have been done years ago, it was not, so we are left with the construction of even more nuclear plants which, I repeat, by design, are dangerous.

There are still over 100 operating facilities in the US...100 too many.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. And think of the money that will have to be spent to store the waste
which still can't be done safely! That's a lot of dough that could be used to switch to really safe and renewable energies.

But those that got the $$ now also own the government now, so only policies which will assure the continuation of their oligarchy get passed.

The rich and famous have not yet found a way to own and meter the sun and the wind. There's the REAL reason we don't have more safe energy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. Think of the money needed to be spent securing these facilities. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #26
30. Yep - whole lotta $$ to them that already got it
and a hazard for thousands of years to boot!

And can anybody explain to me how wind turbines mess with equipment the DOD says it messes with? I mean, wind is there whether we put up blades to spin in it or not. What's the deal with using 'protect America!' as a chant for making sure America never achieves energy independence? They wrap themselves in flags and they wrap their self-serving policy choices in 'Homeland Security'.

Could it be that big money energy companies have the DOD protecting them from smart local entities that are located where they can catch power from the wind? Could it be that Big Energy wants to slow wind produced power until they manage to get ownership of the wind and meter it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #23
33. Sorry, but those can't support an entire power grid
The whole idea that we can get all our energy from wind and solar is, frankly, mad. we are going to need nuclear no matter what untill we perfect fusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. The nucleophobia in this thread is sickening.
The anti-nuclear arguments have been refuted countless time in the Energy/Enviroment forums.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnOhioan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. You have every right to.....
have an opinion. As do I..it is my opinion that nuclear power generation is, was, and always will be, a terrible idea.

No arguments have been refuted...despite your best wishes. For every person you can hold up as supportive of nuclear powerm ican find one who realizes what a dangerous thing we are playing with here.

If you want to say that nuclear power generation is all that...go ahead. The people of this country stopped the building of new plants once before...we will do it again.

Have a nice day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mbperrin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #33
37. Why is that? All energy on this planet came from the sun.
Everything that grows, blows, rots, or can be taken apart got its energy from Sol. Coal is stored solar energy, so is oil. Nuclear is just releasing the bindings that hold us together, and the energy to bind is solar, whether you're talking planetary formation about the gravitational well or any other building or making process.

Not to mention the poisons created by the whole nuke process that last, effectively, forever. BTW, they're storing those in Andrews, TX, 30 miles north of me and also on top of my water and upwind from my air. Where'd they get their first waste? Hanford, where the DUMP there leaked. These things always leak, never has been on otherwise except those too new.

Someone mentioned battery storage. So? Build batteries. That technology would really take off if we spent some $ on it. What do you think these satellites circling the globe run on? Solar, that's what, with batteries. Why? Hafta ask NASA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
27. Does this mean that the Iranians
Edited on Mon Jun-26-06 11:06 AM by TexasLawyer
get to bomb us? Yes, the licensees "say" that they will use the enriched fuel for energy production, but it could all be a cover! :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zann725 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
31. Interesting...since I saw a large group of people w/petitions to be signed
just this last weekend. They alleged to be "LaRouche" supporters, and urged the new solution to energy shortage lay in building lots of nuclear plants nationwide. The mere thought of which "rocked" my solar plexis. I replied, "Don't you realize all these new NUCLEAR power plants could be Terrorist targets? And that even in the past, Nuclear power plants have often gone NON-updated in safety...and are dangerous to water beds, and surrounding neighborhoods.

In reply to the potential "terrorist threat" to these Nuclear Power Plants, one alleged LaRouche person replied, I just met with Al Queda people, and we're safe building these?!!

I walked away, eyes rolling, shaking my head. Sadly, many people WERE signing the petitions...unthinkingly.

"Wake up sheeple!" I thought...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ilsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
36. South texas Nuclear Project is getting two new reactors.
That was announced last week. They are on the Tx coast, roughly 50-60 miles southeast of Houston.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Aug 30th 2014, 07:24 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC