GreenYes Archives
[GreenYes Home] - [Thread Index] - [Date Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]

[greenyes] Fw: [PW] [Fwd: Senate Energy Bill Gives Billions for New Reactors]
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "sue fracke" <sugarloafmtnloghomes@no.address>
To: <list@no.address>
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 12:31 AM
Subject: [PW] [Fwd: Senate Energy Bill Gives Billions for New Reactors]


> 
> 
> Michael Mariotte wrote:
> > 
> > NEWS FROM NIRS
> > 
> > NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE
> > 1424 16TH STREET, NW, SUITE 404, WASHINGTON, DC 20036
> > 202.328.0002, f: 202.462.2183; nirsnet@no.address, www.nirs.org
> > 
> > For Immediate Release                   Contact: Michael Mariotte or
> > Cindy Folkers
> > May 1, 2003                                               202-328-0002
> > 
> > BUSH-CHENEY-DOMENICI ENERGY BILL WOULD GIVE BILLIONS IN TAXPAYER MONEY
> >       TO BUILD DANGEROUS, UNNECCESSARY NEW ATOMIC POWER REACTORS
> > 
> >   BILL APPROVED BY SENATE ENERGY COMMITTEE WOULD SET NATION ON WRONG
> >                        ENERGY COURSE FOR DECADES
> > 
> > The Senate Energy Committee today approved a comprehensive energy bill
> > that would provide huge new taxpayer subsidies to the nuclear power
> > industry, including direct taxpayer funding of new commercial nuclear
> > reactorsa path that wasn't chosen even during the gung-ho days of
> > nuclear development in the 1970s.
> > 
> > "The Senate Energy Committee is facing backwards," said Michael
> > Mariotte, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource
> > Service (NIRS). "They are getting ready to throw the public's
> > hard-earned cash at the most dangerous and most obsolete technology of
> > the 20th century. Instead of attempting to secure a future that will
> > meet our needs for both energy and a clean environment, committee
> > chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM) has fashioned a bill that would do
> > little but enrich a few nuclear utilities and reactor manufacturers
> > with the public's money.
> > 
> > "The Senate Energy Committee would have us believe that spending tens
> > of billions of dollars to help utilities build 6-10 new reactors would
> > be in any way meaningful for our nation's energy future. Spending that
> > kind of money might be usefulif it were for wind power and other
> > renewable technologies that can provide electricity without producing
> > lethal radioactive waste, threatening communities with atomic meltdown
> > and providing tempting targets for terrorists, as the FBI warned about
> > just yesterday," Mariotte said.
> > 
> > NIRS noted that while three nuclear utilities are in the process of
> > applying for "early site permits" to build new reactors, that program
> > is being paid for by taxpayer money too. "The utilities aren't willing
> > to put up their own money to build new reactors," pointed out Cindy
> > Folkers of NIRS' Energy Future Project. "It's only when taxpayer funds
> > are provided that the utilities show interest in new reactors."
> > 
> > Among other provisions, the energy bill would:
> > 
> >      1.      Give billions to cover 50% of the cost of up to 8,400
> >      Megawatts, or 6-10 new reactors, of new nuclear power plants.
> >      Since 1947, government subsidies to nuclear reactors have reached
> >      $145 billion while wind and solar have received about $5 billion.
> > 
> > 2.      Would renew the Price-Anderson Act indefinitely. This law caps
> > industry liability at about $9 billion when estimates of the actual
> > cost of a catastrophic accident reach as high as $600 billion. The
> > difference would likely be covered by taxpayer money.
> > 3.      Bush's Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative would receive $1 billion to
> > research hydrogen fuel production from nuclear reactors, which could
> > include construction of a new reactor in Idaho. This ignores the fact
> > that hydrogen fuel for cars can be generated much faster, cheaper and
> > more cleanly by using other methods, including sustainable energy.
> > 4.      Approximately $610 million would fund the Advanced Fuel Cycle
> > Initiative which would allow reprocessing research and could fund the
> > Mixed Oxide fuel program (MOX). Reprocessing was banned by the Carter
> > Administration because of health and environmental concerns. The
> > dangerous MOX Program would use plutonium from nuclear weapons as fuel
> > for commercial reactors that were not designed for it.
> > 
> > "It is clear from past precedent that nuclear power cannot survive in
> > a free market. At a time when our country must have true energy
> > independence, the Senate has decided to give yet more taxpayer money
> > to nuclear power reactors, an expensive, dangerous source of energy
> > and a terrorist target." said Folkers.
> > 
> > "The once touted 'too cheap to meter' nuclear industry now boasts
> > itself invulnerable to terrorism," said Paul Gunter, Director of the
> > NIRS Reactor Watchdog Project. "But building more nuclear power plants
> > actually would mean more pre-deployed terrorist targets in an
> > increasingly insecure world," he concluded.
> > 
> > "We hope that the American people will learn what this energy bill
> > really is about," said Mariotte. "And it's not about energy. It's
> > about ensuring that our nation's energy resources stay in the hands of
> > the fewespecially the centralized nuclear power utilities and
> > manufacturers--instead of being distributed where they would do the
> > most good: among the renewable energy and energy efficiency
> > communities. In the long run, the people who wrote and support this
> > energy bill will make the executives of Enron look like paragons of
> > social responsibility."
> > 
> >                                  -30-
> _______________________________________________
> Penweb mailing list
> Penweb@no.address
> http://list.penweb.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/penweb
> 







[GreenYes Home] - [Date Index] - [Thread Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]