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).
Thursday, June 19, 2014
Justice Prevailed: Muckaty nuclear waste plan finally dumped | DiaNuke.org
Justice Prevailed: Muckaty nuclear waste plan finally dumped | DiaNuke.org: Traditional Owners and campaigners are celebrating today after learning that plans for a national nuclear waste dump at Muckaty in the Northern Territory have been scrapped.
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Help make the September 20 climate rally in NYC the largest, most visible anti-nuclear statement in decades!
 |
| Renewable energy rally in Berlin |
The September 20 climate march and rally in New York City now being organized promises to be the largest environmental rally ever. We support this effort, but we also know that nuclear power can't save the climate. Let's take advantage of this opportunity and send the strongest, clearest and most visible message that nuclear power is no climate solution, that a nuclear-free, carbon-free future is not only possible but the real way to protect the climate.
NIRS is helping organize people from across the country to attend this event. And we want to print thousands of flags, banners and signs to make sure the anti-nuclear position is clear. Let's do in New York what Germans did at a renewable energy rally in Berlin in May and have an impossible-to-ignore sea of Nuclear Power, No Thanks flags and Don't Nuke the Climate signs. We need your help to cover the costs of printing these materials.
Please contribute as generously as you can now. Every contribution through this page will go directly toward these materials costs!
DONATE NOW > https://org2.salsalabs.com/o/5502/p/salsa/donation/common/public/?donate_page_KEY=11445
Important note: if you are outside the United States, please use this page instead to make your donation: http://www.razoo.com/story/Nuclear-Information-And-Resource-Service
special thanks to NIRS - http://www.nirs.org
Sunday, June 15, 2014
Anti-nuclear activists ratchet up pressure to block restart of Kagoshima reactors - AJW by The Asahi Shimbun
KAGOSHIMA--More than 1,000 protesters assembled before the prefectural government building here June 13 to oppose moves to restart a local nuclear power plant.
If the Sendai nuclear plant in Satsumasendai, Kagoshima Prefecture, were to go back online, it would mark the nation’s first restart under new safety standards brought in after the March 2011 nuclear disaster in Fukushima Prefecture.
The rally, which organizers deemed a “critical phase” in their anti-nuclear efforts, coincided with the start of the prefectural assembly session.
“Governor, why don’t you pick a fight with the central government like the Hakodate mayor has done to protect the life and health of residents?” Satoshi Kamata, a noted nonfiction writer who has written extensively about labor and environmental pollution issues, barked through a loudspeaker.
Kamata, 76, was referring to a lawsuit filed in April by the Hakodate municipal government in Hokkaido to demand a halt to the construction of a nuclear power plant across the Tsugaru Strait in Oma, Aomori Prefecture.
“After serious problems of pollution in the 1970s, Japanese learned that their lives are more important than the nation’s economy. Why are we regressing to the same situation in the question of nuclear power?” asked Kamata, who flew in from Tokyo, where he regularly participates in a weekly anti-nuclear protest held outside the prime minister’s office.
Among the other participants were evacuees from the disaster at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant. The rally was organized by about 90 groups, including a local co-op.
The protesters submitted to prefectural officials a petition signed by about 120,000 people from across Japan in protest to the restart of the plant, which is operated by Kyushu Electric Power Co...
more: Anti-nuclear activists ratchet up pressure to block restart of Kagoshima reactors - AJW by The Asahi Shimbun
Saturday, June 7, 2014
12 JUNE; Bristol, UK: WITCH WATCH - Full moon gathering at Hinkley Point | Stop Hinkley
"for as long as it takes"
new facebook page -
https://www.facebook.com/witchwatchatHinkleyPoint
Witch Watch is a 24hour vigil - sometimes longer - held on the night of the Full Moon when she is still waxing. WW evolved to defend Mother Earth as part of the Stop Hinkley C campaign and the proposed new build of nuclear power stations in Britain.
The camp glimmers in the hedgerow of the last lay-by, on the main road into the power station, near Bridgwater, Somerset. All are welcome to join us but the camp is women only after daylight hours.
WW provides a meeting place to make connection, share information and to bring your magic. A Sacred Fire is lit and tended through the night.
Witch Watch bears on-site witness and observation of the destruction and construction that is taking place, and holds a positive intention for a different future and the need for balance in the world. Best to ring 07874 819 608 before you come to check for last minute change of plans.
For more info ring 07874 819608 or email.
STOP HINKLEY #stophinkley
http://stophinkley.org/
http://stophinkley.org/Events.htm
Southwest AgainstNuclear
https://www.facebook.com/SouthWestAgainstNuclear
Friday, June 6, 2014
Old Reactors v. New Renewables: The First Nuclear War of the 21st Century | GreenWorld
Within the past year, a bevy of independent, financial analysts (Lazard, Citi, Credit Suisse, McKinsey and Company, Sanford Bernstein, Morningstar) have heralded an economic revolution in the electricity sector. A quarter of a century of technological progress has led to the conclusion that over the course of the next decade a combination of efficiency, renewables and gas will meet the need for new resources and more importantly, render the antiquated baseload model largely obsolete.
The academic debate over whether we could get to an electricity system that relies entirely (99 percent) or mostly (80 percent) on renewables late in this century is largely irrelevant compared to the fact that over the next couple of decades we could see a rapid and substantial expansion of renewables (to say 30 percent of 40 percent), if the current economic forces are allowed to ply out and policies to advance the transformation of the electricity system are adopted.
Political revolutions tend to follow economic revolutions, which is where we stand in the electricity sector today. The dominant incumbents, particularly nuclear utilities, have recognized that they face an existential threat and they have launched a campaign to eliminate it. Utilities, which loudly announced the arrival of a “nuclear renaissance” less than a decade ago, are desperate to save their fleet of aging reactors from early retirement and “stay relevant to the game going forward” (as the CEO of Exelon, the nation’s largest nuclear utility put it) because they cannot compete at the margin with renewables or gas...
more: Old Reactors v. New Renewables: The First Nuclear War of the 21st Century | GreenWorld
whats up: #BustTheMyth
you can't nuke global warming!
#RE_TOOL NOW !!!
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
NUCLEAR POWER AND CLIMATE: WHY NUKES CAN'T SAVE THE PLANET | PETITION: Take nuclear subsidies out of EPA carbon rules | CREDO Mobilize
New nuclear power would be too slow, cost too much, create too much radioactive waste, pose too much threat of nuclear disaster, and produce both too much plutonium and even carbon to be useful as a climate strategy. Meanwhile, the costs of clean renewable energy are plummeting and capacity is skyrocketing, making renewables the clear choice to replace both polluting nuclear and fossil fuel plants. Yet the EPA’s carbon reduction proposal released June 2 would encourage ratepayer subsidies to keep uneconomic, aging and dangerous nuclear reactors that otherwise would close operating indefinitely. The proposal also would encourage more construction of extraordinarily expensive new reactors. Both of these steps would have the effect of deterring deployment of 21st century energy technologies, including solar, wind, geothermal, advanced energy efficiency, distributed generation, smart grids and other clean energy programs. Tell President Obama that the nuclear provisions in the Administration’s carbon reduction plan must be removed and clean energy must be supported if we are to effectively address global warming.
FACT SHEET :: NUCLEAR POWER AND CLIMATE: WHY NUKES CAN'T SAVE THE PLANET
special thanks to NIRS - http://www.nirs.org
whats up: #BustTheMyth
you can't nuke global warming!
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
EPA’s proposed carbon rules provide subsidies to uneconomic, aging, dangerous nuclear reactors | PETITION & Fact Sheet
 |
| The fastest and cheapest ways to reduce carbon emissions are more renewables and energy efficiency. This city in Japan shows points the path… |
The Environmental Protection Agency’s long-awaited proposed rules to attain carbon emission reductions from existing power plants was released today.
We’ve noticed some environmental groups already have sent out mass e-mails urging their members to support the proposal. Not so fast. Very few government rule proposals deserve unqualified support and this proposal is no exception.
Indeed, its 645-page text includes some–although oddly worded and wholly unnecessary–support for nuclear power. The support is not only unnecessary, it would be counterproductive to building a clean, carbon-free energy system.
The EPA appears concerned that some uneconomic, aging reactors will close during the next few years–as we’ve been arguing they will and should for months. So the EPA came up with the idea of allowing states to partially subsidize these reactors. As worded, it seems that EPA would encourage ratepayer subsidies to support six percent of a state’s existing nuclear generating capacity. That’s a strange formulation and is based on the notion that about six percent of the nation’s nuclear capacity is uneconomic and thus subject to early shutdown. But the concept doesn’t necessarily work well on a state-by-state basis, so it’s not clear that this would really be helpful to the industry. And it’s probably less helpful than EPA appeared willing to support in some earlier drafts of the proposed rules.
However, since the proposal is so poorly worded, it is possible EPA means that subsidies should be allowed for all nuclear capacity in order to save the six percent it thinks might close otherwise. That certainly would be an unwarranted and very costly subsidy for ratepayers. The lawyers are looking into this and we’ll let you know what they conclude…
The nuclear industry seemed relatively pleased, although not exuberant, with the proposal, which leaves implementation of carbon reduction goals mostly up to the states. Nuclear Energy Institute CEO Marvin Fertel told Greenwire that the next push for the industry at the state level will be to add nuclear power to existing state Renewable Energy Standards, “We have a bunch of states that have renewable portfolio standards; we think you ought to be basically looking at in the state maybe a clean energy standard … and you should be including nuclear as a part of that,” Fertel said.
We’ve been saying here for several weeks that the state implementation plans for carbon reductions will be the next key nuclear battleground, and the proposed rule makes clear that will be the case...
more: EPA’s proposed carbon rules provide subsidies to uneconomic, aging, dangerous nuclear reactors | GreenWorld
GreenWorld is published by Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS,http://www.nirs.org).
PETITION
"While I support your efforts to address global warming, costly consumer subsidies for old, uneconomic nuclear reactors and new nuclear power must be removed from your climate plan. These reactors can and should be replaced with clean renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Why is this important?
"Nuclear power is not only ineffective at addressing global warming, by misdirecting money better spent on clean renewable and energy efficiency resources, it is actually counterproductive.
"But that’s not nuclear’s only drawback in addressing our climate crisis. As NIRS’ new fact sheet on nuclear power and climate indicates, new nuclear power would be too slow, cost too much, create too much radioactive waste, pose too much threat of nuclear disaster, and produce both too much plutonium and even carbon to be useful as a climate strategy. Meanwhile, the costs of clean renewable energy are plummeting and capacity is skyrocketing, making renewables the clear choice to replace both polluting nuclear and fossil fuel plants.
"Yet the EPA’s carbon reduction proposal released June 2 would encourage ratepayer subsidies to keep uneconomic, aging and dangerous nuclear reactors that otherwise would close operating indefinitely. The proposal also would encourage more construction of extraordinarily expensive new reactors. Both of these steps would have the effect of deterring deployment of 21st century energy technologies, including solar, wind, geothermal, advanced energy efficiency, distributed generation, smart grids and other clean energy programs.
"Tell President Obama that the nuclear provisions in the Administration’s carbon reduction plan must be removed and clean energy must be supported if we are to effectively address global warming."Why is this important?
"Nuclear power is not only ineffective at addressing global warming, by misdirecting money better spent on clean renewable and energy efficiency resources, it is actually counterproductive.
"But that’s not nuclear’s only drawback in addressing our climate crisis. As NIRS’ new fact sheet on nuclear power and climate indicates, new nuclear power would be too slow, cost too much, create too much radioactive waste, pose too much threat of nuclear disaster, and produce both too much plutonium and even carbon to be useful as a climate strategy. Meanwhile, the costs of clean renewable energy are plummeting and capacity is skyrocketing, making renewables the clear choice to replace both polluting nuclear and fossil fuel plants.
"Yet the EPA’s carbon reduction proposal released June 2 would encourage ratepayer subsidies to keep uneconomic, aging and dangerous nuclear reactors that otherwise would close operating indefinitely. The proposal also would encourage more construction of extraordinarily expensive new reactors. Both of these steps would have the effect of deterring deployment of 21st century energy technologies, including solar, wind, geothermal, advanced energy efficiency, distributed generation, smart grids and other clean energy programs.
"Tell President Obama that the nuclear provisions in the Administration’s carbon reduction plan must be removed and clean energy must be supported if we are to effectively address global warming."
Take nuclear subsidies out of EPA carbon rules | CREDO Mobilize: new nuclear power would be too slow, cost too much, create too much radioactive waste, pose too much threat of nuclear disaster, and produce both too much plutonium and even carbon to be useful as a climate strategy. Meanwhile, the costs of clean renewable energy are plummeting and capacity is skyrocketing, making renewables the clear choice to replace both polluting nuclear and fossil fuel plants. Yet the EPA’s carbon reduction proposal released June 2 would encourage ratepayer subsidies to keep uneconomic, aging and dangerous nuclear reactors that otherwise would close operating indefinitely. The proposal also would encourage more construction of extraordinarily expensive new reactors. Both of these steps would have the effect of deterring deployment of 21st century energy technologies, including solar, wind, geothermal, advanced energy efficiency, distributed generation, smart grids and other clean energy programs. Tell President Obama that the nuclear provisions in the Administration’s carbon reduction plan must be removed and clean energy must be supported if we are to effectively address global warming.
FACT SHEET :: NUCLEAR POWER AND CLIMATE: WHY NUKES CAN'T SAVE THE PLANET
see also
whats up: #BustTheMyth
you can't nuke global warming!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)