▶ ECU #628 TURNING THE HEAVENS INTO A WAR ZONE | Karl Grossman

Karl Grossman​ :: “Turning the Heavens Into a War Zone.” This just-out TV program, part of the "Enviro Close-Up with Karl Grossman" series, spotlights how if Trump gets his way on formation of a U.S. Space Force, the heavens would become a war zone.

Inevitably, there would be military conflict in space. The program details how the Space Force scheme flies in the face of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 that designates space as the global commons to be used for peaceful purposes. It tells of how space weaponry would be nuclear-powered—as Reagan's “Star Wars” scheme was to be, with nuclear reactors and plutonium systems on orbiting battle platforms providing the power for hypervelocity guns, particle beams and laser weapons. Amid the many horrible things being done by the Trump administration, turning the heavens into a war zone would be the most terribly destructive. The coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, Bruce Gagnon, is featured in the program and discusses what people can do to stop this.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: 'I love James Hansen, but he is wrong on [the nuclear power issue]' | EnviroNews

WATCH

“…I love James Hansen, but he is wrong on this issue; he’s been wrong on nuke for a while,” Kennedy responded when asked. “He doesn’t understand the cost advantage that solar and wind now have over the incumbents, including nukes.”

According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, there are 449 nuclear power reactors currently operating in 30 countries, with 60 more under construction. In the U.S., 99 reactors produced 805.3 billion kilowatt-hours of electric power in 2016. The new Watts Bar 2 unit came online last year in Tennessee – a project of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), a corporation owned by the federal government. The reactor 2 unit at that plant is already in shutdown due to equipment failures. 

Kennedy also questions the industry’s financial viability. “If you remove the subsidies from nuclear power there’s not a single utility in the world who would build a nuclear power plant,” he said. 

According to a 2011 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, “Government subsidies to the nuclear power industry over the past fifty years have been so large in proportion to the value of the energy produced that in some cases it would have cost taxpayers less to simply buy kilowatts on the open market and give them away…” 

MORE / VIDEO – 
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: 'I love James Hansen, but he is wrong on [the nuclear power issue]' - EnviroNews | The Environmental News Specialists

EDITORIAL: The Washington Post Editorial Board's Epic Fail on 'Carbon-Free' Nuclear Power - EnviroNews | The Environmental News Specialists

...Not once, but twice in its short opinion writeup, WaPo‘s editorial board flippantly refers to nuclear power as “carbon-free.” This statement could not be further from the truth. A minor investigation on the part of WaPo‘s editorial team would have quickly revealed that this statement is outright nonsense — yet the publication’s editors chose to let it fly. But why?

From a investigative reporter’s point-of-view, it would be low-hanging fruit to discover, not only is nuclear energy not carbon-free, it is on the contrary carbon-intensive.

…Thus far, WaPo has issued no official correction or retraction. It did however choose to publish a very short letter to the editor criticizing the editorial, authored by Paki Wieland from Northampton, Massachusetts. The letter, titled, Plenty of carbon used in nuclear energy, reads:

The April 2 editorial “Nuclear energy in peril” referred to nuclear energy as carbon-free. It is not carbon-free.

If we look at nuclear power in whole, from the uranium mining to the dismantling of nuclear power plants, there is an extraordinary use of energy, from the initial devastation of the environment where the uranium is mined to the costly cleanup.

The impact on the environment continues through every phase of nuclear-energy production. A deep look into the issue of nuclear power would lead to overwhelming evidence to support ending nuclear power as a source of energy.

While it is good WaPo‘s opinion editors chose to publish this dissenting viewpoint, it is far from an official correction or retraction of the original piece. It is also the opinion of the EnviroNews Board that WaPo should make a correction or retract its editorial entirely…

more: EDITORIAL: The Washington Post Editorial Board's Epic Fail on 'Carbon-Free' Nuclear Power - EnviroNews | The Environmental News Specialists