The Astronomical Cost of New Subsidies for Old Reactors: $280 Billion. | GreenWorld

ALERT: October 27 ::: Rally to Stop the Nuclear Bailout in New York! (Facebook event page)

GreenWorld has covered the unfolding story of the American nuclear power industry’s clamor for new subsidies and bailouts since it started in 2014. Purely as a spectator sport, it might have been entertaining to watch the country’s largest utilities go from proclaiming a “Nuclear Renaissance” a decade ago to peddling the message that “Nuclear Matters.”

But there is just too much at stake to treat it like a game. The utility industry’s ramped-up efforts to block renewable energy and horde billions of our clean energy dollars to prop up old nukesrisks both climate and nuclear disaster. Most of these proposals have been failing, thanks to the dogged persistence of grassroots activists and clean energy groups–and, it must be said, the outrageous sticker price of subsidies the industry needs. In fact, just this week, the two-year saga of FirstEnergy’s $8 billion nuclear-plus-coal bailout plan seems to have ended, with what amounts to a consolation gift to a couple FirstEnergy utility companies. Still an outrageous corporate giveaway, but no subsidies for nuclear or coal, even after it seemed like a done deal a few months ago.

But New York Governor Cuomo’s decision in August to award a 12-year, $7.6 billion subsidy package to four aging reactors–including reversing Entergy’s decision to close the FitzPatrick reactor this coming January–has put wind into the industry’s sails. Even that chapter isn’t over, with lawsuits already being filed and several more expected. And environmental groups this week launched a new campaign to get Governor Cuomo to smell the coffee and cancel what will not only be the largest corporate give-away in the state’s history, but relegate clean energy to second-class status behind old nukes.

The lingering uncertainty hasn’t stopped the industry PR and lobbying machines, though–after all, billions of dollars in free money is at stake! Exelon, FirstEnergy, and other companies touted New York as a national model, and began urging states from Connecticut to Illinois to follow suit. Having to get each state to line up is going to be a tall order. In addition to FirstEnergy’s failed Ohio bailout, Exelon hasn’t been able to sell a much smaller five-year, $1.5 billion subsidy in Illinois. And nukes in Connecticut and New Jersey are still making millions in profits each year, without heaping billions more in subsidies onto ratepayers’ utility bills.

So the industry has started pushing for a national bailout. NIRS thought we should take a look at what that might cost. Next week, we will publish a short report showing that a federal nuclear subsidy based on the EPA’s estimate of the social cost of carbon (as New York approved) would be massively expensive: up to $280 billion by 2030. Even if it were only applied to reactors that are already becoming unprofitable–more than half of the nukes in the country, according to a recent report–it would total at least $160 billion. In Illinois and Pennsylvania alone, it would cost ratepayers in each state $30 billion.

NIRS is launching a petition to the next President urging the new administration to say no to a national nuclear bailout, and to end subsidies for nuclear and fossil fuels. We hope you’ll sign the petition and help us get to our goal of 100,000 signatures. Whoever wins the election in November needs to know that another nuclear bailout isn’t going to fly with the American people.

There is no nuclear bridge to a clean energy future. If we are going to make good on the global climate treaty and prevent runaway global warming, we need to go all in on renewable energy (and efficiency!) and not waste our time and money propping up dirty energy sources. Nobody is even talking about putting  the kind of money a national nuclear bailout would cost into climate action. But if we did, we could get off nuclear and fossil fuels in a generation. And maybe save the world.

The Astronomical Cost of New Subsidies for Old Reactors: $280 Billion. | GreenWorld


ALERT: October 27 ::: Rally to Stop the Nuclear Bailout in New York! (Facebook event page)

whats up: #BustTheMyth – nukes are NOT carbon-free, clean, safe, green, or affordable!

Tell the Next President: Act Now for 100% Clean Energy

Stop the $100+ Billion Bailout for Nuclear Power!

Energy corporations are pushing a massive plan to prop up dirty, old, dangerous nuclear power plants—and they want the next President to make it a national policy, costing $280 billion by 2030. 

For the same money, we could get four times more renewable energy than nuclear power, and accelerate the transition to a 100% renewable energy economy--carbon-free AND nuclear-free .

Join us in calling on our next President, and every state governor, to end subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear power—and to oppose the nuclear power bailout. This outrageous scheme is starting at the state level, and the industry is already pushing presidential candidates take it nationwide.The United States can make energy a force for good, both domestically and abroad:

• Making sure our kids have clean, healthy air, land, and water.
• Creating millions of good jobs and building a prosperous, stable economy.
• Making energy affordable, so no one has to choose between the power bill and the grocery bill.

Our next President, and our state governors, must say no to the nuclear power bailout, and put our energy dollars to work for the clean energy revolution.

SIGN NOW: Tell the Next President: Act Now for 100% Clean Energy

see also: The Astronomical Cost of New Subsidies for Old Reactors: $280 Billion. | GreenWorld


whats up: #BustTheMyth – nukes are NOT carbon-free, clean, safe, green, or affordable!

Preparing the country for nuclear terrorism | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

"The candidates for president of the United States continue to discuss preventing nuclear proliferation and the threat of nuclear terrorism, yet we hear little about how well prepared the nation is to manage the aftermath of terrorist use of an improvised nuclear device. Some may think the notion of such an attack is apocryphal. So allow me to explain just how likely such a possibility is, how devastating the result of such a detonation would be, and—in particular—just how poorly prepared the United States is to respond..."

more: Preparing the country for nuclear terrorism | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Pregnant! Avoid the Nuclear Power Plants!

When speaking of the dangers of nuclear power plants, most people think of incidents in which radioactivity is released, or they think of large reactor accidents such as Windscale, Chernobyl and Harrisburg. It is less known, though, that everyday normal operations of nuclear facilities and their “tolerable emissions” already are a threat. The closer children live to a nuclear power plant, the higher is their risk of developing cancer. The until now most elaborate study on this issue from 2007 (LINK & SUMMARY) verified that without doubt. But it had no consequences: Instead, supporters of nuclear power strive to conceal the proven link between cancer and nuclear power plants. In this issue, its grave results and discussions about them are described.

more: Pregnant! Avoid the Nuclear Power Plants!

whats up: #BustTheMyth – nukes are NOT carbon-free, clean, safe, green, or affordable!

Risk of another Chernobyl or Fukushima type accident plausible, experts say : Broadcast: News items : University of Sussex

“The next nuclear accident may be much sooner or more severe than the public realizes.”

Biggest-ever statistical analysis of historical accidents suggests that nuclear power is an underappreciated extreme risk and that major changes will be needed to prevent future disasters

A team of risk experts who have carried out the biggest-ever analysis of nuclear accidents warn that the next disaster on the scale of Chernobyl or Fukushima may happen much sooner than the public realizes.

Researchers at the University of Sussex, in England, and ETH Zurich, in Switzerland, have analysed more than 200 nuclear accidents, and – estimating and controlling for effects of industry responses to previous disasters – provide a grim assessment of the risk of nuclear power.

Their worrying conclusion is that, while nuclear accidents have substantially decreased in frequency, this has been accomplished by the suppression of moderate-to-large events.  They estimate that Fukushima- and Chernobyl-scale disasters are still more likely than not once or twice per century, and that accidents on the scale of the 1979 meltdown at Three Mile Island in the USA (a damage cost of about 10 Billion USD) are more likely than not to occur every 10-20 years.

As Dr Spencer Wheatley, the lead author, explains: “We have found that the risk level for nuclear power is extremely high.

“Although we were able to detect the positive impact of the industry responses to accidents such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, these did not sufficiently remove the possibility of extreme disasters such as Fukushima. To remove such a possibility would likely require enormous changes to the current fleet of reactors, which is predominantly second-generation technology.”

The studies, published in two papers in the journals Energy Research & Social Science and Risk Analysis, put fresh pressure on the nuclear industry to be more transparent with data on incidents.

“Flawed and woefully incomplete” public data from the nuclear industry is leading to an over-confident attitude to risk, the study warns.  The research team points to the fact that their own independent analysis contains three times as much data as that provided publicly by the industry itself. This is probably because the International Atomic Energy Agency, which compiles the reports, has a dual role of regulating the sector and promoting it...

more: Risk of another Chernobyl or Fukushima type accident plausible, experts say : Broadcast: News items : University of Sussex

whats up: #BustTheMyth – nukes are NOT carbon-free, clean, safe, green, or affordable!

Nuclear Hotseat #274: Journalism’s Fukushima Coverage Failures w/Prof. Celine-Marie Pascale, Shaun McGee in UK on Sellafield Documentary’s Hot Impact, and Excellence in Journalism Report

This Week’s Featured Interviews:

• Prof. Celine-Marie Pascale of American University in Washington, D.C. is a sociologist who did a study of mainstream media coverage in the first two years after Fukushima – and not only are her observations stunning, she’s got the data to back them up.  Originally presented on Nuclear Hotseat #203, May 2, 2015.
• Nuclear Hotseat European correspondent Shaun McGee reports on growing response to the BBC Panorama documentary on nuclear safety problems at the UK’s Sellafield facility.  Watch the Sellafield BBC Panorama documentary!

LISTEN: Nuclear Hotseat #274: Journalism’s Fukushima Coverage Failures w/Prof. Celine-Marie Pascale, Shaun McGee in UK on Sellafield Documentary’s Hot Impact, and Excellence in Journalism Report

Numnutz of the Week:

Thinking about why Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn) thinks that nuclear energy is “pollution free” (?!?!?????) is enough to give a girl the (radioactive) vapors!  Has he never heard of plutonium?  Or does he think that’s just one of Walt Disney’s characters?

ACTION REQUESTED:

TWEET THIS IN SUPPORT OF CAPE DOWNWINDERS AND THE CAMPAIGN TO SHUT DOWN PILGRIM NUCLEAR:

Pilgrim nuclear dangers last 2 wks – emergency shutdown, gas & water leaks, malfunctions, no evacuation possible. #ShutPilgrimNow!

more!
http://nuclearhotseat.com/2016/09/21/nuclear-hotseat-274-journalisms-fukushima-coverage-failures-wprof-celine-marie-pascale-shaun-mcgee-in-uk-on-sellafield-documentarys-hot-impact-and-excellence-in-journalism-report/

DNA damage, cancer caused by ionizing radiation identified - UPI.com

Researchers found mutational signatures which appear to indicate changes to DNA caused by exposure to ionizing radiation, which may allow doctors to better treat cancer caused by non-spontaneous mutations. Photo by Constantin-Ciprian/Shutterstock

In a study published in the journal Nature Communications, scientists showed the effects of gamma rays, X-rays and radioactive particles on DNA, deciphering patterns they think will help differentiate between spontaneous and radiation-caused tumors, allowing for better cancer treatment...

more: DNA damage, cancer caused by ionizing radiation identified - UPI.com

whats up: #BustTheMyth – nukes are NOT carbon-free, clean, safe, green, or affordable!

Hinkley C nuclear go-ahead: May caves in to pressure from France and China - The Ecologist

Hinkley is a project from a dying era, which would saddle Britons with eye-watering costs for decades, and radioactive waste for millenia. Renewables, smart grids and energy storage are the fleet-footed mammals racing past this stumbling nuclear dinosaur.

The French and the Chinese may be celebrating the UK's decision to press ahead with the Hinkley C 'nuclear white elephant', writes Oliver Tickell. But the deal is a disaster for the UK, committing us to overpriced power for decades to come, and to a dirty, dangerous, insecure dead end technology. Just one silver lining: major economic, legal and technical hurdles mean it still may never be built.

The UK's energy department, BEIS, today announced the go-ahead for the controversial Hinkley Point C (HPC) nuclear power plant in Somerset.

Only weeks ago Theresa May's government delayed the signing of the deal with EDF to confirm its subsidy package which is likely to cost UK energy users anywhere from £30 billion to over £100 billion for 35 years after it opens...

more: Hinkley C nuclear go-ahead: May caves in to pressure from France and China - The Ecologist

whats up: #BustTheMyth – nukes are NOT carbon-free, clean, safe, green, or affordable!