[NukeNet] [no-new-nukes-yall] Anti-nukers a root cause of the climate crisis ??? A call to more energy justice collaboration!

Sat Jan 26 02:07:41 EST 2008

Turkey Point would be a Westinghouse 1,000 MW APWR. These numbers are much more indicative of what utilities really are looking at in terms of cost than anything that has been publicly announced so far....and are in line with Moody's Investor Service estimates, the reality of the Finnish EPR, etc....

Michael
NIRS

________________________________

From: no-new-nukes-yall at yahoogroups.com on behalf of Roger Herried
Sent: Fri 1/25/2008 6:34 PM
To: Mary Olson-Forward; nukes no-new; nukenet at energyjustice.net
Subject: Re: [no-new-nukes-yall] Anti-nukers a root cause of the climate crisis ??? A call to more energy justice collaboration!

Wow!  So what was FP&L's previous estimates?  These are the numbers that will drive Wall Street elsewhere!

What design are they using? Westinghouse's? 

Those numbers tops AEP's estimate of $4-5K this last August.  From $1.2K to $8K in one year, before they've even started! 

The idea of expanding the community of opposition is interesting. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a larger forum that all energy activists could go to talk?  Anybody know of such a place? 

Not that everybody should or could join 5 or 6 other lists, but it sounds like people keeping an eye on the national energy focus could use a larger network to exchange strategic discussions with.

McCarthy sounds like the character that could be the source of the recent claim that we get more radiation from a banana than we do from nuclear power...

r

Mary Olson wrote: 

	The excerpt below is from a web page by a Stanford professor emeritus, John McCarthy and includes commentary dated as recently as Jan 03, 2008... it is the TOP "hit"  on a Google search for "nuclear cost per kW" and is full of little gems...I have pasted in an excerpt (and I added the "red" emphasis).

	On the issue of costs, John completely ignores the news from Florida Power and Light that it now estimates its cost for 2 new reactors at Turkey Point to be $12 -- $18 Billion (See: "FPL's plans for two nuclear reactors at Turkey Point draw mixed reviews" South Florida Sun-Sentinel,  January 10, 2008 -- sadly no longer posted on-line -- it was posted to this list by Joy Ezel -- thank you Joy! -- I can forward you the text...)  So it works out to ~ $5400 -- $8000 per kW (construction cost only) for a new nuke -- Eye-opening that Sci Am quotes $4000 per kW for PV, installed! see: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan <http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan>  (that one IS still on line!)... no fuel cost, no big decommissioning cost...no waste (except for when we don't bother to capture the solar energy contribution!)

	John has some interesting allegations about anti-nuclear activism and its costs. I am always complimented when ALL the historical nuclear cancellations and nuke shut-downs are attributed to folks going out and demonstrating -- apparently the locals closed TMI Unit 2 ??? SO of course he blames anti-nukers for the industry's mistake in investment in nuclear plants that were then canceled -- What is new is that in John's eyes the anti-nuclear movement is to blame for Global Warming as well....!  I am bringing this out because I don't think this guy is very original -- so this is opinion that is, no doubt being promoted behind the scenes widely!

	So here is my call: It is time to make common cause with folks fighting coal plants, green-fields gas plants, mountain-top removal, energy justice issues, climate justice and AT THE SAME TIME standing firm on nukes NOT letting nukes qualify for carbon credits...as we all continue to promote SOLAR, EE, WIND,etc... -- if you have not done it yet -- please do check out IEER / Dr. Arjun Makhijani's Carbon-Free, Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for US Energy Policy (book in entirety is on-line at no charge -- but I recommend you start with the summary in the SDA newsletter -- also available on-line http://www.ieer.org <http://www.ieer.org/>  ) Arjun has given us a wonderful place to re-set the dialogs on our energy future!  

	There are some astounding analysis soon to come out on how the Warner Lieberman carbon-credit scheme (pending federal legislation) would "bless" the nuke gang -- watch for that news...John McCarthy acknowledges that the nuclear revival he envisions (see the full text) will make the Renewable Energy business "losers."
	--Mary Olson, NIRS Southeast

	PS July 2008 -- climate activists of the get-out-and-demonstrate variety are calling for a week of action -- last year we did the Southeast Convergence for Climate Action that successfully brought sustainability, coal, climate and anti-nuke activists together for a week of cross-issue and wonderfully inter-generational exchange... drop me a line if you want more info -- or help networking to similar interests in YOUR area! 

	http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclearnow.html <http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclearnow.html>  

	NUCLEAR NOW

	(this is an exceprt: )

	Winners and losers

	A switch to nuclear energy will cause there to be economic winners and losers. The potential losers will be tempted to resist the process politically. 

	The winners: 

	Of course, the nuclear industry itself will be the big winner as will the construction industry. The public in general will win too, but the general welfare has only a small and intermittent political constituency. 

	In previous substantial economic shifts, the losers usually had to fend for themselves. It may be more cost-effective for society to compensate the losers rather than just defeat their resistance. In my opinion, the US is rich enough to give substantial compensation to the losers from the transition. This applies both to the workers and to the stockholders and managers of the old industries. 

	The losers: 

	The coal industry will lose. It will be reduced to a fraction of its present size. Fortunately, the process of coal miners having to get other jobs is well advanced. At the end of WWII there were 700,000 coal miners; now there are only 70,000 underground miners and an equal number of surface miners. The use of coal for making steel will probably survive. 

	The oil industry will lose, but it doesn't have so many production employees and neither does natural gas. On the other hand, these industries have great political influence. 

	It is not clear to me whether the environmental protest industry that succeeded in paralyzing the development of nuclear power in the US from the 1970s to the present counts as an economic loser. It seems to me that they haven't been putting much into protesting nuclear energy recently, and anyway can readily shift targets. 

	The alternative energy industry will lose. This industry hasn't generated an appreciable amount of energy but has absorbed much Government money, and has absorbed much research energy in the academic world. I suppose they should be compensated also. 

	Needless to say, none of the losers should get all they will feel entitled to. 

	Q. Which countries will will lose most from delay? 

	A. Most likely it will be the backward (alias underdeveloped) countries. When the supply of oil is reduced and the prices go up, either because of shortage or because the advanced countries see acute danger from CO2 emissions, the backward countries will have the biggest difficulty in switching to nuclear. The advanced countries should help them switch. 

	Q. How much has anti-nuclear sentiment cost the world already? 

	A. If the US had continued nuclear energy to the point of eliminating coal for producing electricity I believe we'd have more than met the Kyoto targets. There have also been a few million unnecessary deaths from air pollution from coal. It would be good if someone would persistently pester the environmental organizations to explain why these deaths are not their fault.

	"The Need for Nuclear Power," by Richard Rhodes and Dennis Beller, published in= the January-February 2000 issue of the journal Foreign Affairs is oriented to the political community. 

	In 2004 March a consortium of 7 companies announced that they plan to go through the bureaucratic process of getting an advanced nuclear reactor plant licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Should they succeed with this process, individual companies could build reactors of this type with minimal bureaucratic delay. This is very important, because a large part of cost of the present generation of nuclear power plants was occasioned by bureaucratic delays, many of which were caused by lawsuits from anti-nuclear organizations. 

	Here's the press releasse <http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuc-press-release.html> . I made my own copy, because the urls of press releases often change. 

__._,_.___  

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional 
Change settings via the Web <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/no-new-nukes-yall/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJnMDNzdGJrBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzE4MzY2MjQxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA0Mzk1NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNzdG5ncwRzdGltZQMxMjAxMzAzNjk4>  (Yahoo! ID required) 
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest <mailto:no-new-nukes-yall-digest at yahoogroups.com?subject=Email Delivery: Digest>  | Switch to Fully Featured <mailto:no-new-nukes-yall-fullfeatured at yahoogroups.com?subject=Change Delivery Format: Fully Featured>  
Visit Your Group <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/no-new-nukes-yall;_ylc=X3oDMTJlN2Nva3BmBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzE4MzY2MjQxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA0Mzk1NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNocGYEc3RpbWUDMTIwMTMwMzY5OA--> | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> | Unsubscribe <mailto:no-new-nukes-yall-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> 

__,_._,___ 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.energyjustice.net/pipermail/nukenet_energyjustice.net/attachments/20080126/5bc0dbb6/attachment.html 