Skip to main content

Others Fighting No Nukes Crew

Shortly after we posted a video response by Elizabeth King to a new appeal from the "No Nukes" crew, we saw a number of other folks hop onto YouTube to post their own responses. One person posted the audio of a Dennis Miller interview with Dr. Patrick Moore. Someone else posted a clip from Penn & Teller's Showtime program on nuclear energy. But best of all, a computer science student posted a point by point counter to the original video:



It's always good to find out that you're not alone out there. In the meantime, be sure to stop by the YouTube page where the original "No Nukes" video is hosted and be sure to leave a comment.

UPDATE: Rod Adams recorded a video of his own.

Comments

Anonymous said…
A couple of points in response to the spin from this anonymous “environmentalist.
On the difference between nuclear "subsidizes" and "loan guarantees" --- the United States Office of Budget and Management has identified that there is at least a 50% chance that the nuclear industry will default on these loans. Given a history of more than $150 billion in stranded investments in cost overruns and abandoned nuclear projects the risk of default is even higher. This is more appropriately a government “give away” or a “bail out” program to a 50-year old and aging industry that still cannot stand up on its own two feet.
Contrary to his claim that the reason for nearly half of the nuclear construction projects being abandoned or “going belly up,” it was not public legal challenges to safety and environment problems. Wall Street continues to recognize that the real reasons were industry financial miscalculations on capital intensive construction costs and industry’s failure to meet construction deadlines; both of which still plague the new construction projects in Finland, Taiwan and Japan today.
Regarding the claim that “the barriers to waste disposal are political” we need remember that it was the politics of the nuclear industry Political Action Committees that got Congress that singled out Nevada in 1987 as the only site that would be characterized for a deep geological repository. A scientifically-based process would have continued the characterization of multiple geological sites and mediums. However industry and congress abandoned the scientific process due to the firestorm of public opposition created by broader Department of Energy searches among a dozen sites in states east of the Mississippi River where the brunt of nuclear waste is being generated. It is a foregone conclusion that should broader searches resume for another or more nuclear waste sites, nuclear power generation will become more unpopular. Thus, continued pressure to not only open Yucca Mountain but lift the scientifically modeled caps on the amount of nuclear waste from 70,000 to 135,000 metric tons or more to be stored in this volcanically and earthquake active site makes its ultimate operation ever more dubious.

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin