Wind, solar, geothermal and wave energy are fully able to meet our electricity needs. Why should we risk everything so that this industry can profit?
STILL NO REPOSITORY - Nuclear reactors have produced radioactive waste since the 1940s, yet we still have no permanent repository
MOBILE CHERNOBYL - Transporting nuclear waste to a central repository risks contamination along highways and rail lines, by accident or terrorists
MAJOR DISASTER EVERY 20 YEARS - Latest calculations show that the world will average one major disaster every 20 years
NO ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ON THE REZ - Uranium mining on the Navajo Reservation is an environmental justice disaster
NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROLIFERATION -You can’t make a modern nuclear weapon without a nuclear reactor
FINANCIAL RISK IS OURS - Because of huge taxpayer subsidies and loan guarantees, the industry does not pay the full price for nuclear plant projects that they do not complete. In addition, the Price-Anderson Act caps damages that the industry must pay after a disaster. U.S. taxpayers pay the rest.
UNINHABITABLE LAND - We risk the loss of valuable real estate. For example, if a disaster happened at New York’s Indian Point, the estimated economic loss would be in the hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars. Beyond the cash value, the Hudson Valley, like so many other places near NPPs, is irreplaceable.
HEALTH RISK IS OURS - Google “Chernobyl children” and see the horrible results of nuclear power disasters . Sixty percent of Fukushima children have abnormal thyroids; in a few years thyroid cancers will present. The Japanese government is already hiding their medical records.
EXTREME WEATHER CAN CAUSE MELTDOWNS - (1) Climate change raises water temperature leading to the shutdown of some water-cooled reactors. (2) Extended loss of power grid will lead to more Fukushimas.
via Coalition Against Nukes
DOWNLOAD PDF (2 pages; includes Nukes are not carbon-free; print double-sided "2-up" on 8-1/2 x 11)
see also –
whats up: "Nukes are not carbon-free" | C.A.N. Coalition Against Nukes
Background Information on Climate Change and Nuclear Power - NIRS
whats up: "Nukes are not carbon-free" | C.A.N. Coalition Against Nukes
Background Information on Climate Change and Nuclear Power - NIRS
Nuclear keep ratepayers in Energy Slavery to Utilities while Renewables allow endusers to profit from their own generations.
ReplyDeleteAnother Big reason is Nuclear Payback*
* http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nuclear+payback
Those that support nuclear power because nuclear power somehow supports them; no matter what the health implications or other "costs" are for others.
=====
This is yet another reason why Nuclear is to be avoided and one of the prime reasons why Big Business wants ever more nuclear!
Parts of this comment have been posted on http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2015/03/10/how-fast-and-how-deep-will-utilities-venture-into-the-solar-energy-craze/
Here is yet another reason why Solar (of all flavors) is starting to look better and better:
'Nuclear power is risky and unprofitable'
Mycle Schneider, an expert on nuclear energy, expects bankruptcy in the nuclear industry and "substantial security risks."
http://www.dw.de/nuclear-power-is-risky-and-unprofitable/a-18299318
snip
DW: Mycle Schneider, every year you publish the World Nuclear Industry Status Report. What are the global trends?
The production costs for nuclear energy have increased over the last couple of years. It's a dramatic development as the costs of all the other technologies, especially renewable energies, are decreasing. Renewable energies are, therefore, now in real competition. Furthermore, power demand in Europe is shrinking, and for operators of nuclear power stations, these are real problems.
So if nuclear power isn't economically viable, why then are some governments - such as the British government - planning to build new nuclear power stations?
Energie- und Atomexperte Mycle Schneider
Sees nuclear power as too risky and expensive: Mycle Schneider, expert on nuclear energy.
For years, the British government has counted on nuclear power and not put forward a reasonable energy policy. Well, nuclear energy has become more expensive now but other, more intelligent scenarios have not been developed. It's also not certain yet, whether or not the new Hinkley Point nuclear power plant will be built as planned. There are no signed contracts yet. But the estimated cost to generate power from these plants is about twice as high as the average price of electricity today.
===> See cost of energy chart in the above article for a real eye opener
Parts of the above posted:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/06/nuclear-reactor-investment-pay-overseas-suppliers-hinkley-point#comment-64824314
And
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_big_fat_radioactive_lie_20151205
And
http://antinuclear.net/2015/12/07/the-billionaires-mission-to-make-nuclear-great-again/
And
http://www.nippon.com/en/currents/d00200/