Monday, July 21, 2014

Decarbonising the world energy system without nuclear - The Ecologist


Nuclear power advocates believe the technology is essential to building a fossil fuel free world energy system. In fact it is optional, writes David Elliott - and not even very helpful. Efficiency and the 'new renewables' can do the job faster, and at much lower cost.


We can head for a near 100% renewable future should we wish. The key questions are how quickly can, should or must we do that?

Renewable energy is doing well around the world - supplying around 22% of global electricity.
In 2013, the world achieved 1,560 gigawatts (GW) of renewable electricity generation capacity - almost five times more than the 331 GW of nuclear generation capacity. And where nuclear power supplied 11% of the world's electricity, renewables about twice as much.
Hydro is the biggest electricity supplying renewable, with around 1,000GW of generation capacity in place. Wind comes next at 318GW, while PV solar is at around 139GW globally. And on the heat side, along with biomass use, solar thermal is now at 326GW, much of it in China.
Will renewables continue to grow? Globally, the recession hit all investment, and total global investment in 'clean energy' of all sorts fell 9% in 2013 to $254bn, following a 9% drop in 2012, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
Renewables take 72% share of new generating capacity
But within that, renewables have held up quite well. The REN21 group says 2013 marked the sixth consecutive year in which renewables had the majority share of new electricity generating capacity, with a 72% share in 2013...





whats up: #BustTheMyth
you can't nuke global warming!


Sunday, July 20, 2014

The best-kept nuclear secret



Thirty years ago this week - on July 16 - the worst accidental release of radioactive waste happened at the Church Rock uranium mine and mill site. While the Three Mile Island accident (that same year) is well known, the enormous radioactive spill in New Mexico has been kept quiet. It is the U.S. nuclear accident that almost no one knows about.
more:
  The best-kept nuclear secret



Saturday, July 19, 2014

9.21 PEOPLES CLIMATE MARCH, NYC: nuclear-free, carbon-free contingent | Nuclear-Free Carbon-Free




9.21 PEOPLES CLIMATE MARCH - NYC :: via No Nukes Nirs (NIRS on facebook)-
People's Climate March: nuclear-free, carbon-free contingent
- 350.org's Bill McKibben on nuclear power and climate. "Nuclear power is counterproductive, for economic reasons alone, in
 dealing with our climate crisis. Clean energy solutions are cheaper and faster to implement."







Join the nuclear-free, carbon-free contingent September 21!
http://peoplesclimate.org/nonuclearpower/

People's Climate March: nuclear-free, carbon-free contingent (facebook)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/nukefreeclimatefreemarch/

Nuclear Power and Climate: Why Nukes Can't Save the Planet.
NIRS' basic 1 sheet factsheet: Perfect for downloading, printing, and distributing (pdf format).http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/nukesclimatefact614.pdf

Just $10 will buy a flag for nuke-free contingent to People's Climate March Sept 21. http://t.co/IEvTTwR2fX









Nuclear Information and Resource Service - NIRS



whats up: #BustTheMyth
you can't nuke global warming!





Nuclear Free Campaign Comments on EPA Proposed Carbon Rule | Grassroots Network


On June 2, 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced its proposed rule for reducing carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emissions from existing electrical generation units. This is an important and historic step toward addressing climate change. But EPA’s support of nuclear power and underplaying of the importance of renewables and efficiency is of serious concern.






Comments can be made online at www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602-0001. Reference Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602. Alternatively, fax to 202-566-9744 or mail to EPA Docket Center, Mailcode 28221T, Attn: Docket OAR–2013-0602, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. 

EPA will hold four public hearings on the proposed Clean Power Plan the week of July 28, 2014 in Atlanta, GA; Denver, CO; Pittsburgh, PA; and Washington, DC. Speaking slots are filled but we encourage as many people as possible to attend. Location information can be found here. The link to the EPA proposed rule is here



Nuclear Free Campaign Comments on EPA Proposed Carbon Rule | Grassroots Network (Sierra Club)

whats up: #BustTheMyth
you can't nuke global warming!


Thursday, July 17, 2014

9.21 CLIMATE MARCH | Nuclear-Free Carbon-Free • #nuclearfreecarbonfree



OUR MISSION – The nuclear-free, carbon-free contingent will have a visible presence at the People’s Climate March. We are currently seeking permits for a rally on September 21 (location to be announced soon), and a feeder march into the main march. In addition, we will sponsor a national meeting of anti-nuclear climate activists on Saturday, September 20 (again, location to be announced soon).
Organizing/mobilizing conference calls every other Tuesday evening through September. Contact nirsnet@nirs.org for more information.
No Nukes, No Coal, No Kidding!

WORK WITH US –  (listserve | join us at the event | facebook)




Nuclear-free, carbon-free contingent now has an official hub site on People's #Climate March website:http://t.co/3LrNUcKrnT Join us!



Nuclear-Free Carbon-Free


whats up: #BustTheMyth
you can't nuke global warming!

Saturday, July 5, 2014

Health studies explode the myth of the 'safe' nuclear power plant | The Japan Times


Despite the continuing disaster at Fukushima No. 1, there remains one final myth regarding nuclear power plants in Japan: Namely, that in the absence of a major accident, a normally operating nuclear power plant is safe. However, the now-verifiable reality is that it is not, at least not for residents living in the vicinity of the plant.
As early as 2007, Germany’s Federal Office for Radiation Protection published a thoroughly researched study titled “Childhood Cancer Rates Near Nuclear Power Plants.” The study covered 24 years (1980-2003) and included 1,592 children with cancer and 4,735 controls living around 16 nuclear power sites throughout Germany.
At all 16 sites, the study found that children under 5 years of age had a higher risk of developing cancer the closer they lived to a plant. Risk was most increased within 5 km of the plants, i.e. by 60 percent. Seventy-seven children living within 5 km of a nuclear plant were found to have cancer, considerably higher than the 48 that would be expected statistically.
For leukemia, the risk increase was 120 percent: 37 cases instead of the expected 17. In other words, within the 5-km range, 29 children suffered from cancer (of whom 20 had leukemia) simply because they lived in these areas. Altogether, there were up to 275 more cases of cancer than would be expected statistically at these sites.
Even normally operating nuclear power plants constantly release radioactive elements into the air and cooling water. The excess cancers among children living near nuclear facilities are likely established during the embryonic stage when the embryo is extremely radiosensitive. This is the time when cells are proliferating rapidly and are much more vulnerable than in later, more stable growth phases. Damaged cells proliferate easily, paving the way for cancer and other diseases.
Additional studies have been conducted in both Britain and the U.S. with similar, if not even more disturbing, results. In 2006, in conjunction with Welsh broadcaster S4C, an environmental consultancy produced a report based on interviews with villagers in the vicinity of the Trawsfynydd nuclear power station in north Wales.
Researchers focused on almost 1,000 people of all ages who had been living in three communities close to the power plant throughout the 1996-2005 period. The incidence of cancer (of any type) among women younger than 50 was reported to be more than 15 times the national average. Furthermore, breast cancers in women aged 50-61 were five times the average level for women of that age. Overall, the survey revealed double the risk for cancer (of any type) relative to the average rates for England and Wales.
As for the U.S., on March 20 of this year, the Cape Cod Times reported the court testimony of Richard Clapp, who was the director of the Massachusetts Cancer Registry from 1980. He told the court: “In the first two years (of his tenure), we found an excess of leukemia in Plymouth and towns near the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. There was a fourfold excess of leukemia in people who lived and worked near the plant.”
On March 4, the Cal Coast News reported on a recent study conducted by the nonprofit World Business Academy business think tank concerning the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in San Luis Obispo County, California. The study found that those living within a 25-km radius of the plant had a significantly increased incidence of various cancers, including thyroid, breast and melanoma.
Further, since the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant opened in the mid-1980s, San Luis Obispo County changed from a relatively low-incidence county in terms of cancer to a high-incidence county, translating to an additional 738 people diagnosed with cancer between 2001 and 2010.
Cancer incidence in San Luis Obispo County rose from 0.4 percent below the California average to 6.9 percent above that figure, giving it the highest cancer rate of all 20 counties in Southern California. After Diablo Canyon began operating, the incidence of thyroid and female breast cancer also showed a significant increase.
Perhaps most disturbingly, after Diablo Canyon began operating, both infant mortality and child/adolescent cancer mortality rose significantly. The incidence of melanoma soared from 3.6 percent above to 130.2 percent above the state incidence rate. It now has the highest rate of all the counties in California.
The preceding reports demonstrate yet again the scientifically established fact that there is no safe dose of radiation, no matter how small, bearing in mind that dangerous radioactive elements constantly accumulate in the body. Thus, with each nuclear reactor the Japanese government allows to restart, residents living as far away as 25 km will once again be placed at a higher risk of falling victim to life-threatening illnesses.
Finally, The Associated Press has just released an investigation showing that radioactive tritium has leaked from three-quarters of U.S. commercial nuclear power sites, often into groundwater, from buried piping that has corroded. What’s more, as America’s nuclear power reactors continue to age, the number and severity of the leaks has been escalating, even as U.S. regulators extend the licenses of more and more reactors. Considering Japan’s own fleet of aging reactors, can you guarantee such leaks won’t occur in Japan?
In light of this evidence, let alone the possibility of future major accidents, Minister Motegi, are you and the rest of the Abe administration still determined to restart the reactors?
BRIAN VICTORIA
Kyoto


Health studies explode the myth of the 'safe' nuclear power plant | The Japan Times


Tuesday, July 1, 2014

#OccupyNuclear

New nukes could draw 74M per day from the Savannah | Region | The State

New nukes could draw 74M per day from the Savannah | Region | The State: WAYNESBORO, Ga. --- Just two years after drought dropped lake levels in the Upper Savannah River nearly 20 feet, Georgia state regulators are considering permits for two new nuclear reactors that could draw up to 74 million gallons of water every day from the river.

Monday, June 23, 2014

Nuclear power - small isn't beautiful, safe, or cheap - The Ecologist

Nuclear power - small isn't beautiful, safe, or cheap - The Ecologist: Nuclear power is neither beautiful, nor safe, nor cheap, writes Justin Keating - a message to the United States, where the Obama administration has pledged to waste over $200 million financing the 'Small Modular Reactor' (SMR).