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

[Dolph Honicker]

If you haven't done so already, please push the "Press Release" link at the very bottom of the page.  
 
The companies discussed turned into Nustart, and are partnering with TVA to tear down the nukes started at Bellefonte and replace them with a Westinghouse AP1000.  This is the test of the COL that is mentioned in that press release years ago.    This press release gives the background of that group, which I had never seen before.  Of course, the French company is now AREVA, I believe.  Please correct me on this if I am wrong.
 
Have you seen the articles by Casey Clark Ney about efforts to build two new reactors in Idaho on "virgin" sites?  I think they must be Areva designs. 
I have c.ced her above.  This email will give her background information, both pro and con.  Thank you all for posting it.  Those of you who would like to contact Casey, I'm sure she'd be happy to have further information.  Thanks to Roger Herried for posting her story in his recent list of nuclear articles.
   
 Also, the figures quoted for solar, $4000 per kW,  can be reduced by 90% if the stories put out Popular Science Magazine are right.  They gave their 2007 innovation of the year award to Nanosolar PowerSheets.  Google that.  The only place in the country with a factory to produce these is in San Jose, California.  
 
We recently organized a Sierra Club Group in LaGrange.  We are almost 5 months old now.  The mayor, chairman of the Troup county commission, and one of the city councilmen came to our January meeting, where we showed "Kilowatt Ours" followed by a discussion.  I mentioned that we would like to see the city install Nanosolar Powersheets on all of our municipal buildings, schools, and public housing projects.   Since the San Jose Nanosolar Power
sheet company has so many backorders it would be years before they could fill our orders, I suggested that LaGrange build a factory here in our Lukken Industrial Park.   The President of LaGrange College, is our speaker in Feb. and Mayor Lukken has accepted our invitation to be with us in March to kick off our Cool Cities project.  
 
There are currently 780 "Cool Cities" now.  If each one of them adopted the idea of installing Nanosolar PowersSheets on all of their municipal buildings, schools, and public housing projects, just think what would happen. It would jump start the solar revolution.  By the way the Nanosolar PowerSheets company is privately held.  The nuclear industry can't buy it up and destroy it.  If there's not a Sierra Club group in your city, start one.  If your city isn't a cool city, initiate it.  Google U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement for list of cities and their action plans.   
 
If we want solar, we've got to jump start it.  Can anyone think of a better idea?
 
Jeannine Honicker
 
     



Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:07:41 -0500From: nirsnet at nirs.orgTo: rogerh at energy-net.org; nirs at main.nc.us; no-new-nukes-yall at yahoogroups.com; nukenet at energyjustice.netSubject: Re: [NukeNet] [no-new-nukes-yall] Anti-nukers a root cause of the climate crisis ??? A call to more energy justice collaboration!


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 HerriedSent: Fri 1/25/2008 6:34 PMTo: Mary Olson-Forward; nukes no-new; nukenet at energyjustice.netSubject: 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...rMary 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 (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 ) 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 SoutheastPS 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 
NUCLEAR NOW(this is an exceprt: )
Winners and losersA 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. I made my own copy, because the urls of press releases often change. __._,_.___  
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe __,_._,___ 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.energyjustice.net/pipermail/nukenet_energyjustice.net/attachments/20080126/b5c6051f/attachment.html