New Hampshire Underground

For you anti-nuke libertarians, the Clamshell Alliance is having a reunion this weekend in Conway. If you're not familiar with the Clams, here's the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clamshell_Alliance

QuoteThe Clamshell Alliance is an anti-nuclear organization co-founded by Paul Gunter in 1976, which conducted non-violent demonstrations against nuclear power in New England in the late 1970s and 1980s. In April, 1977 over 2,000 Clamshell protestors occupied the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant construction site. 1,414 of these activists were arrested and held in jails and National Guard armories for up to two weeks after refusing bail.[1] In 2007, veterans of the Clamshell Alliance marked the 30th anniversary of its founding with the creation of a website called, "To the Village Square: Nukes, Clams and Democracy", which relates the story of the Clamshell Alliance and why it matters today.[2] The Clamshell Alliance opposes all nuclear power in New England.

I'll try to get more details on location and time.

Oh, that evil, evil, cheap, clean energy! It must be stopped!

Clams have been recent advocates of the "Right of Revolution", esp. Guy Chichester - see further in the Wikipedia article [emphasis added]:

Activities

The alliance conducted non-violent demonstrations in the late 1970s and 1980s. On August 1, 1976, 18 New Hampshire residents were arrested for Criminal Trespass and Disorderly Conduct in Clamshell's first civil disobedience action on the Seabrook site. Three weeks later, a second occupation involved 180 New England residents who were arrested and held in a local armory overnight. In April, 1977 over 2,000 protestors occupied the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant construction site. 1,414 of these activists were arrested and held in jails and National Guard armories for up to two weeks after refusing bail. Clamshell activists used this detention for training and networking, and long considered the detention a blunder on the part of Republican Governor Meldrim Thomson, Jr.[1]

Richard Asinof wrote:

    The overwhelming success of the Clamshell Alliance's occupation can be attributed to three factors; the planning and leadership of the Clamshell Alliance itself; the strength of the affinity group and the spirit and discipline of the occupiers; and the strong impact that women in key leadership roles exerted on the events. [1]

In later years, New Hampshire authorities minimized the impact of mass civil disobedience at the Seabrook plant by treating activist trespass as a violation, and allowing community service in lieu of fine. Actions were still media events capable of swaying public opinion, but their larger impact was limited. Clamshell Alliance members attempted to have their actions taken more seriously by the courts, and began staging sit-ins of the office of Republican Governor Judd Gregg. While this action resulted in jail time for criminal trespass, the local courts would not rule on the question of "competing harms" or the "Right of Revolution" granted by the New Hampshire Constitution. Rye, New Hampshire activist Guy Chichester eventually sawed down a Seabrook Station emergency warning siren pole, resulting in charges of "criminal mischief", a Class B felony. Although there was no doubt that he had cut down the pole, Chichester was acquitted. In his appeal Chichester's lawyer Patrick Fleming argued that according to article 10 of the N.H. state constitution, any citizen has a right to act to protect his or herself when the state fails to do so, which is known as the Right of Revolution:

    [Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

The Clamshell Alliance was an inspiration to other communities who wished to organize opposition to nuclear power plants. Hundreds of groups with similar names, such as the Abalone Alliance in California, adopted similar non-violent organizing techniques to oppose nuclear power and nuclear weapons around the country and internationally.

Here's the Clams' site: http://www.clamshell-tvs.org/

They're an inspiration to all New Hampshire activists and some of their process should be emulated for other actions.

From the site, some process hints:

QuoteThe Clamshell Alliance was the model for a movement that forced the nuclear industry to shelve its plans for new nuclear plants for 30 years. Some say its success was just a matter of the right people, time, place and issue. Others say the key to success was Clamshell's structure — highly organized, but extremely democratic and decentralized to the point of anarchy. What can not be debated is that the Clamshell Alliance fulfilled Albert Einstein's plea to take the issue of atomic energy to the village square.Petitions, town referendums, workshops, lectures, brochures all helped people realize this was important. And music, buttons, posters and massive, nonviolent citizens' occupations of the Seabrook, NH, nuclear plant site gave color and drama to that debate.

QuoteThe Clamshell Alliance was the model for a movement that forced the nuclear industry to keep energy prices, pollution, and dependence on foreign oil high for 30 years. Some say its success was just a matter of the right people, time, place and issue. Others say the key to success was Clamshell's structure — highly organized, but extremely democratic and decentralized to the point of anarchy. What can not be debated is that the Clamshell Alliance fulfilled Albert Einstein's plea to take the issue of atomic energy to the village square.Petitions, town referendums, workshops, lectures, brochures all helped decieve the public about the safety and benefits of nuclear energy. And music, buttons, posters and massive, nonviolent citizens' occupations of the Seabrook, NH, nuclear plant site gave color and drama to that debate.

FTFY.

From their website, the Clamshell Alliance seems to be a very, very statist organization: Their first point (http://www.clamshell-tvs.org/nuclear_relapse/index.html) against nuclear energy is that it's too easy for a new plant to be licensed:—

QuoteEasy licensing.

The feds have Severely curtailed state and community involvement in the licensing of new nuclear power plants. (Public interventions in licensing may no longer raise security issues, even for new sites and reactor designs. Nor can the design of a reactor be challenged. An early site permit process focuses narrowly on environmental impacts. Construction and operating licenses are now combined into a single proceeding, eliminating any chance of challenging any construction-related issues. In addition, federally-supported state deregulation of electricity markets means the need for more electricity is no longer a factor in building new nukes.)

They go on to complain about government subsidies and the large corporations that own the plants, which is great, but doesn't make up for the fact that they're explicitly begging the government to use aggression to stop the building of new plants.

Fear of nuclear energy is largely unfounded. And these guys unfortunately seem to be a good example of someone using Constitutional protections for some very bad purposes.

I'm sorry, Jack, but nuclear power is the safest, cleanest, most dense form of power energy known to man at this time.

That is from the ground to the outlet in comparison with other energy sources in 1000MW plants. The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0911762175/robinsonselfteacA/) by Petr Beckman. Yes it is a 1977 book but the physics still apply.

Also, France derives about 75-80% of its electric power from nuclear. They started the drive toward nuclear in 1973. How many people have died as a result of this?

OK, I posted that as a knee-jerk reaction to the content of their message.

If you are pointing them out as a successful way to do civil disobediance then I see your point.

Successful in what manner?
Seabrook currently has a nuclear power plant and produces a significant amount electricity.

Quote from: Pat McCotter on July 26, 2008, 12:28 PM NHFT
I'm sorry, Jack, but nuclear power is the safest, cleanest, most dense form of power energy known to man at this time.

That is from the ground to the outlet in comparison with other energy sources in 1000MW plants. The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0911762175/robinsonselfteacA/) by Petr Beckman. Yes it is a 1977 book but the physics still apply.

Also, France derives about 75-80% of its electric power from nuclear. They started the drive toward nuclear in 1973. How many people have died as a result of this?

I wonder how the people in Chernobyl feel about that?  >:D

I'll confess I don't know the complete safety rating of Nuclear and the waste products, but it seems that Solar, Wind etc. are potentially safer than Nuclear.  Whether those sources can generate as much electricity as Nuclear may be a good question.
I'm of the opinion that smaller more decentralized electrical generation as well as conservation might be a good thing.
W

The previous post went astray on me...that  "W'" on the end? Means nothing, it is a figment of your collective imaginations.

Other than nuclear, all sources of energy are solar or gravitational based.
It is much more likely that individuals will pursue options within their means, but that shouldn't require limits or restrictions being placed on others.

Quote from: The Right Reverend Doctor Pope Sir Ryan on July 26, 2008, 09:28 AM NHFT

QuoteThe Clamshell Alliance was the model for a movement that forced the nuclear industry to keep energy prices, pollution, and dependence on foreign oil high for 30 years. Some say its success was just a matter of the right people, time, place and issue. Others say the key to success was Clamshell's structure — highly organized, but extremely democratic and decentralized to the point of anarchy. What can not be debated is that the Clamshell Alliance fulfilled Albert Einstein's plea to take the issue of atomic energy to the village square.Petitions, town referendums, workshops, lectures, brochures all helped decieve the public about the safety and benefits of nuclear energy. And music, buttons, posters and massive, nonviolent citizens' occupations of the Seabrook, NH, nuclear plant site gave color and drama to that debate.

FTFY.

Chernobyl is a fantastic example of what could happen.  There is a reason the feds issure all nuclear power plants after the first 60 million dollars of liability.  (hint, it is because private insurance companies wouldn't, and undoubtably the nuclear industry trying to pawn off expensive liability onto the taxpayers.)

Quote from: David on July 26, 2008, 08:35 PM NHFT

Quote from: The Right Reverend Doctor Pope Sir Ryan on July 26, 2008, 09:28 AM NHFT

QuoteThe Clamshell Alliance was the model for a movement that forced the nuclear industry to keep energy prices, pollution, and dependence on foreign oil high for 30 years. Some say its success was just a matter of the right people, time, place and issue. Others say the key to success was Clamshell's structure — highly organized, but extremely democratic and decentralized to the point of anarchy. What can not be debated is that the Clamshell Alliance fulfilled Albert Einstein's plea to take the issue of atomic energy to the village square.Petitions, town referendums, workshops, lectures, brochures all helped decieve the public about the safety and benefits of nuclear energy. And music, buttons, posters and massive, nonviolent citizens' occupations of the Seabrook, NH, nuclear plant site gave color and drama to that debate.

FTFY.

Chernobyl is a fantastic example of what could happen.  There is a reason the feds issure all nuclear power plants after the first 60 million dollars of liability.  (hint, it is because private insurance companies wouldn't, and undoubtably the nuclear industry trying to pawn off expensive liability onto the taxpayers.)

Chernobyl is an excellent example of the workmanship the Communist model produces. They pretend to pay us; we pretend to work.

Quote from: David on July 26, 2008, 08:35 PM NHFT

Quote from: The Right Reverend Doctor Pope Sir Ryan on July 26, 2008, 09:28 AM NHFT

QuoteThe Clamshell Alliance was the model for a movement that forced the nuclear industry to keep energy prices, pollution, and dependence on foreign oil high for 30 years. Some say its success was just a matter of the right people, time, place and issue. Others say the key to success was Clamshell's structure — highly organized, but extremely democratic and decentralized to the point of anarchy. What can not be debated is that the Clamshell Alliance fulfilled Albert Einstein's plea to take the issue of atomic energy to the village square.Petitions, town referendums, workshops, lectures, brochures all helped decieve the public about the safety and benefits of nuclear energy. And music, buttons, posters and massive, nonviolent citizens' occupations of the Seabrook, NH, nuclear plant site gave color and drama to that debate.

FTFY.

Chernobyl is a fantastic example of what could happen.  There is a reason the feds issure all nuclear power plants after the first 60 million dollars of liability.  (hint, it is because private insurance companies wouldn't, and undoubtably the nuclear industry trying to pawn off expensive liability onto the taxpayers.)

Thanks, David - you nailed it. The reason libertarians oppose nuclear power is that it wouldn't exist in the free market - no one would insure it. The only reason the industry exists in the US is because of the Price-Anderson Act, of which was stated:

QuotePrice-Anderson successfully removed the deterrent to private sector participation in the nation's nuclear power programs.3

or, from the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act):

QuoteAt the time of the Act's passing, it was considered necessary as an incentive for the private production of nuclear power — this was because investors were unwilling to accept the then-unquantified risks of nuclear energy without some limitation on their liability.

ie, the US would be the insurer of last resort, ie, the costs were socialized (transferred to the US taxpayers). Folks like the Clams know this (also having a righteous populist indignation that, at the same time, the profits are privatized - ie, the whole industry is a wealth transfer from the taxpayers to the "capitalist" elite). Sorry, dudes - the Clams are on the libertarian side of this one, AND they had an exemplary action strategy.

Further, there is some new info on the proposed completion costs of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal facility - I recall the latest "final" cost estimates are 10s of Billions of dollars higher than the last. If this cost was properly assessed to the users of the nuclear power (ie, with freedom to choose your power source and pay the costs of power associated with that source), power from nukes would have an even more difficult sell. (I'll go find the latest Yucca Mountain numbers and post them here).

I don't have this attributed yet, but from Bob Williams, a fellow board member of CRR (Campaign for Ratepayers Rights):

QuoteAs of 2001, the cost estimate for Yucca Mountain was $58 billion.

Bush and Co. have just announced a new estimate of $90 billion.  Ward Sproat, the Energy Dept. official in charge of managing Yucca gave the new figure.

He also notes:

QuoteOn Democracy Now tonight [July 16th] Amy Goodman had a very interesting interview with Amory Lovins talking about nuke plant costs.

Quote from: jaqeboy on July 26, 2008, 10:16 PM NHFT
Thanks, David - you nailed it. The reason libertarians oppose nuclear power is that it wouldn't exist in the free market - no one would insure it. The only reason the industry exists in the US is because of the Price-Anderson Act, of which was stated:

QuotePrice-Anderson successfully removed the deterrent to private sector participation in the nation's nuclear power programs.3

or, from the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act):

QuoteAt the time of the Act's passing, it was considered necessary as an incentive for the private production of nuclear power — this was because investors were unwilling to accept the then-unquantified risks of nuclear energy without some limitation on their liability.

ie, the US would be the insurer of last resort, ie, the costs were socialized (transferred to the US taxpayers). Folks like the Clams know this (also having a righteous populist indignation that, at the same time, the profits are privatized - ie, the whole industry is a wealth transfer from the taxpayers to the "capitalist" elite). Sorry, dudes - the Clams are on the libertarian side of this one, AND they had an exemplary action strategy.

And from the same Wikipedia article:
Usage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act#Usage)
Over the first 43 years of the Price-Anderson Act to 2000, the secondary insurance was not required. A total of $151 million was paid to cover claims (including legal expenses), all from primary insurance, including $70 million for Three Mile Island. Additionally, the Department of Energy paid about $65 million to cover claims under liability for its own nuclear operations in the same period.
================================================

How many people have died from use of nuclear power? How much property has been damaged by use of nuclear power? (Chernobyl was a poorly designed and constructed plant. Use Three Mile Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island) and Detroit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrico_Fermi_Nuclear_Generating_Station#Fermi_1) incidents and others I may not know about.)

How many people have died from use of natural gas? How much property has been damaged by use of natural gas?

How many people have died from use of coal? How much property has been damaged by use of coal?

How much land is used by nuclear power plants? How much land is used by wind or solar plants?

I will get cites on the other questions when I can get to the sources - it's too early in the morning to be turning on lights and ransacking boxes. ;)

No need to ransack boxes, just give me the numbers to care for and insure for the wastes for the several hundred thousand years that they'll be toxic to people and the eco-system, or at least a clue on how one would do this assessment and accounting and insurance.

OK. So I don't ransack boxes and get the numbers.

How do we satisfy the growing demand for electricity?

Yes, I know we cannot solve the problem as committees - that would be central planning. Yes I know about trying to get the government out of the way and let the unbridled talents of the people loose on this issue.

Is this why you were showing us the Clamshell tactics against nuclear power - allow libertarians to use those same tactics to get government out of the way?

I'm not taking arguing a position right now because I don't feel I know enough but I worked on nuclear power in the navy. Took an intense crash course for a year on nuclear plants. I forget what the coolant was in Chernobyl, but I remember it's a solid coolant that gets MORE reactive as it heats up requiring constant and careful adjustment of the control rods to keep it under control. Water is what American plants use which becomes LESS reactive as it heats up. That means it's largely self-stabalizing while the Chernobyl reactor was a constant delicate balancing act. Doesn't mean ours are safe, necessarily, but compared to Chernobyl, it's night and day. Also, the long-term ramifications of Chernobyl are exaggerated by activists. I believe Penn & Teller talked about it in their nuclear Bullshit episode.

Chernobyl was a water cooled reactor, however it was moderated by graphite.

Wikipedia entry on the reactor. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK)

Reading through the article, the reactor was designed to allow the water to boil, which is why graphite was used as a moderator.

Chernobyl is a bad example.
The incident was caused by the staff purposefully screwing things up.
Chernobyl also didn't have a reactor shield building, which all American reactors have to contain a meltdown.

My question is what do the anti-nuke folks propose for energy?
Wind and solar won't be enough, and fossil fuels create pollution.

Quote from: Puke on July 27, 2008, 10:13 AM NHFT
My question is what do the anti-nuke folks propose for energy?
Wind and solar won't be enough, and fossil fuels create pollution.

Let the market decide without the use of government granted privilege where all negative externalities are internalized in the price.

Is that too much to ask?

Quote from: Puke on July 27, 2008, 10:13 AM NHFT
Chernobyl is a bad example.
The incident was caused by the staff purposefully screwing things up.
Chernobyl also didn't have a reactor shield building, which all American reactors have to contain a meltdown.

My question is what do the anti-nuke folks propose for energy?
Wind and solar won't be enough, and fossil fuels create pollution.

Wind, Solar and Micro -hydro will provide several environmental advantages over fossil fuels.  No hazardous waste.  Can be applied at or near the user site, no need for long transmission lines in some cases.  If you do it right, you don't get a monthly bill from a government subsidized or regulated utility and might even be able to sell some power.  Sooner or later the government will find a way to tax people who generate their own power though...you know they'll try.

Practicing conservation would help too, the USA is the most wasteful country, no getting around that one.
We're a nation of mostly spoiled people who rely on others to bring us services we can't live without.   Watch what happens when people lose power, people think they're going to die or something. Geez, light a candle and read a book.  Maybe the book could be about simpler living or alternative energy sources ;D 

Hate to play the terrorist card, but if someone was looking to create a nightmare it would be easier to
cause a problem sabotaging a Nuke plant than somebody's wind mill (unless you're Don Quixote or Homer Simpson)

If Nuke plants are insured at tax payer expense...that's pretty fucked too. If somebody wants to build a nuclear power plant, go for it...just don't look to be subsidized and please don't bury your waste in my backyard.
Sort of reminds of the time a girl asked me if I minded if she smoked around me...I said not at all, please just don't exhale.

They're only subsidized by government... under government guidelines.
If no government existed, the owner of any property with sufficient funds could build/purchase their own nuclear plant... much the same as one would solar/wind/micro-hydro.

The truth is that since solar/wind/micro-hydro are largely unregulated... they should be able to easily compete against regulated sources... but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Quote from: John Edward Mercier on July 27, 2008, 01:28 PM NHFT
If no government existed, the owner of any property with sufficient funds could build/purchase their own nuclear plant... much the same as one would solar/wind/micro-hydro.

And what about the liability if an accident should occur?
How can you expose future generations to the risk without their direct consent?

QuoteThe truth is that since solar/wind/micro-hydro are largely unregulated... they should be able to easily compete against regulated sources... but that doesn't seem to be the case.

You are missing the point. Privilege is the other side of regulation.

Remove all government regulations and privilege - which shifts externalities to third parties, and the more "green" solution will always win on economics.

Quote from: Pat McCotter on July 27, 2008, 08:54 AM NHFT
...
How do we satisfy the growing demand for electricity?

We, as libertarians aren't in the "satisfying growing demands for electricity" business. We're in the ethics and protecting people's rights bidness.

If you mean we, as a collective, a nation, etc., we, as libertarians aren't in the collective business, either. We're in the protecting individual's rights to be free from someone else's concept of "we" and "what we ought to do.", eh?

Quote from: Pat McCotter on July 27, 2008, 08:54 AM NHFT

Yes, I know we cannot solve the problem as committees - that would be central planning. Yes I know about trying to get the government out of the way and let the unbridled talents of the people loose on this issue.

Is this why you were showing us the Clamshell tactics against nuclear power - allow libertarians to use those same tactics to get government out of the way?

The Clams stand on their own as an activist movement - yes, lessons should be learned from successful organization methods and tactics of other movements. The Clams just also happened to be on the libertarian side of the nuke issue, as opposed to the rapacious corporate statist monopoly "capitalists" and military industrial complex that promotes and benefits from the noocular power industry. Siding with the bums that are polluting our world for thousands of generations and calling oneself libertarian gives our movement a black eye. "You're ruining it for the rest of us!"

Quote from: dalebert on July 27, 2008, 09:18 AM NHFT
...I believe Penn & Teller talked about it in their nuclear Bullshit episode.

Penn & Teller are "ruining it for the rest of us" on this one. (assuming what you say is correct - I didn't see that episode)

Quote from: Free libertarian on July 27, 2008, 01:08 PM NHFT

Sort of reminds of the time a girl asked me if I minded if she smoked around me...I said not at all, please just don't exhale.

Yeah, I always say "no, I don't mind, as long as you keep it out of my lungs." Sorta the same answer, different spin.

You know, there wouldn't be nearly as much nuclear waste if they would refine and reuse the spent fuel.  Unfortunately a very old federal regulation prohibits the refining of spent nuclear fuel in the US.  Many other countries are doing it with great success.

Quote from: Defender of Liberty on July 27, 2008, 10:29 PM NHFT
Unfortunately a very old federal regulation prohibits the refining of spent nuclear fuel in the US. 

Why?

Quote from: BillKauffman on July 27, 2008, 10:33 PM NHFT

Quote from: Defender of Liberty on July 27, 2008, 10:29 PM NHFT
Unfortunately a very old federal regulation prohibits the refining of spent nuclear fuel in the US. 

Why?

I believe the "thinking" was that it might fall into the wrong hands.   ::)

I say yes to getting the governmant out of the way and letting the free market decide. I understand people's desire to keep the toxic portions of the envirnment out of their bodies - I'm one of them - but how do we go about solving our political problem.

Kudos to you for going after the transportation sector as you are since that is the primary consumer of petroleum and second only to the electric power sector for wasted energy. But using electricity to power vehicles brings us back to the growing demand for it.

And why aren't you going after the power companies using coal to produce electricity? They're the people putting stuff in your lungs. As of 2002 the US got ~54% of our electricity from coal, ~21% from nuclear and ~15% from natural gas. Hydro came in at ~7% with the rest (biomass, solar, wind) bundled into the remaining 3%. Yes, the percentages are different in NH but that is only because there is more biomass available. Coal is still a big percentage.

Thank you, Jack, for making me think more clearly about the issue here.

I am not going to fight the utilities providing us with electricity. I am also not going to fight the government providing subsidies to those same utilities as well as providers of just about anything the people working in those industries have convinced the government is vital to our well-being.

I am also not going to fight people in te liberty movement about issues they are passionate about.

What I am going to do is attempt to educate people about how the government takes their energy and uses it in ways that is detrimental to them.

Just as the first amendment says the government should not establish any specific religion, government should also be prohibited from establishing where we get our energy, food, clothing, water, entertainment, etc, etc, etc.

Again, thank you, Jack, for pushing the passion button that made me think again about what I am doing to promote liberty. Please understand that I still consider nuclear power to be the current best way out of our energy troubles but I see now that that is not the best place to expend my energies. So instead of being against a source of energy or the system that keeps us from using best practices, I am going to have to get back into educating people on the pros of grassroots action in everything they do. Convince them that nanny government is not the source of innovation and lower prices and the things that increase their quality of life, they are - or the networks of people they associate with are.

I was doing that before I got to NH with the vegetable oil powering my car. I lost sight of that when I allowed myself to get drowned in all of the networks vying for my energy. Now that I have a chance to slow down and look I will begin again to teach people how to make their imaginings come true.

Thank you, Jack, for your "getting back to basics" education.

Thank you, Jim and Lauren, for your "putting imagination into action" education.

Thank you, Russell and Kat, for your "living life without permission" education.

Thank you, everyone in NH who took me to the edge of the cliff and let me see that I can't hold back everyone from falling off but that I can teach a few people how to keep from falling off and they in turn can help others.

Quote from: BillKauffman on July 27, 2008, 03:52 PM NHFT

Quote from: John Edward Mercier on July 27, 2008, 01:28 PM NHFT
If no government existed, the owner of any property with sufficient funds could build/purchase their own nuclear plant... much the same as one would solar/wind/micro-hydro.

And what about the liability if an accident should occur?
How can you expose future generations to the risk without their direct consent?

QuoteThe truth is that since solar/wind/micro-hydro are largely unregulated... they should be able to easily compete against regulated sources... but that doesn't seem to be the case.

You are missing the point. Privilege is the other side of regulation.

Remove all government regulations and privilege - which shifts externalities to third parties, and the more "green" solution will always win on economics.

Ron Paul wrote on this one. He feels that doctors should not purchase liability insurance. That patients that wish to do so should purchase 'negative consequences' insurance. Thus individuals would purchase insurance if they chose to deal with the negative consequences of their surrounding. Remember there would be no government to arbitrate, force arbitration, or enforce restitution on the nuclear plant owner.

Quote from: jaqeboy on July 27, 2008, 08:17 PM NHFT

Quote from: Pat McCotter on July 27, 2008, 08:54 AM NHFT
...
How do we satisfy the growing demand for electricity?

We, as libertarians aren't in the "satisfying growing demands for electricity" business. We're in the ethics and protecting people's rights bidness.

If you mean we, as a collective, a nation, etc., we, as libertarians aren't in the collective business, either. We're in the protecting individual's rights to be free from someone else's concept of "we" and "what we ought to do.", eh?

So how did the Clam's protect the property rights of the plant owners... or don't their rights matter?

QuoteHe feels that doctors should not purchase liability insurance. That patients that wish to do so should purchase 'negative consequences' insurance. Thus individuals would purchase insurance if they chose to deal with the negative consequences of their surrounding. Remember there would be no government to arbitrate, force arbitration, or enforce restitution on the nuclear plant owner.

The analogy doesn't quite work because I make a choice to seek the help of a doctor and only I suffer the consequences - there are no negative externalities as there are with nuclear power.

Point well taken.
But what if every source of electricity had an externality for at least a small group?

And not a plausible one... but an actual one?

Quote from: John Edward Mercier on July 28, 2008, 08:53 AM NHFT
what if every source of electricity had an externality for at least a small group?

And not a plausible one... but an actual one?

What is the actual externality to solar or energy conservation?

Well, conservation isn't an actual source of energy.
But for solar (and conservation is some regards), materials had to be mined, processed, manufactured, and transported. Then there is potential loss... as the shaded area no longer has access to it normal solar gain.

There is no 'free lunch'.

Quote from: John Edward Mercier on July 28, 2008, 09:12 AM NHFT
Well, conservation isn't an actual source of energy.

What is the difference in your mind between a BTU produced and a BTU saved?

QuoteBut for solar (and conservation is some regards), materials had to be mined, processed, manufactured, and transported. Then there is potential loss... as the shaded area no longer has access to it normal solar gain.

There is no 'free lunch'.

Solar gain thru the windows on the southside of my house is a "free lunch". There is no "shaded area" in this application and no additional materials mined, processed, manufactured, and transported.

Quote from: John Edward Mercier on July 27, 2008, 01:28 PM NHFT
They're only subsidized by government... under government guidelines.
If no government existed, the owner of any property with sufficient funds could build/purchase their own nuclear plant... much the same as one would solar/wind/micro-hydro.

The truth is that since solar/wind/micro-hydro are largely unregulated... they should be able to easily compete against regulated sources... but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Hydro power is incredably regulated.  Remember, this is the country that demands permits to change a pond or 'wetland' on your own property. 

Quote from: John Edward Mercier on July 28, 2008, 06:21 AM NHFT

Quote from: jaqeboy on July 27, 2008, 08:17 PM NHFT

Quote from: Pat McCotter on July 27, 2008, 08:54 AM NHFT
...
How do we satisfy the growing demand for electricity?

We, as libertarians aren't in the "satisfying growing demands for electricity" business. We're in the ethics and protecting people's rights bidness.

If you mean we, as a collective, a nation, etc., we, as libertarians aren't in the collective business, either. We're in the protecting individual's rights to be free from someone else's concept of "we" and "what we ought to do.", eh?

So how did the Clam's protect the property rights of the plant owners... or don't their rights matter?

Sure they have property rights.  But I have the right of self defense. 
Stuff breaks down, accidents happen.  Folks here can blame the communists till the sun dies, but there have been 'accidents's both in the US, and elsewhere. (Vermonts Yankee nuke plant seems to be having a string of them.)  No big ones here in the USA, but untill medicine creates a perfect human, you can never rule it out.  There is no way in the Amphibian Rotini monsters green earth that you can ensure safety of a nuke plant permanently, nevermind the waste.  I do not believe a person has the right to own, (property rights) something for which if a 'accident' occurs they could never provide compensation for.  Nuke bombs fit in the same scenario.  Thus I have the right of self defense, and kudos to the clam shell people.  An 'accident' in a nuke plant is a crime against humanity.  (W's 'small tactile nukes' he casually threatens Iran with is a crime against humanity too)

I expect people like me that believe no person has the right to 'own' an accidental crime against humanity, to lose the arguement...till the next big accident or two (It may take a few 'accidents').  Then people like me will effectively shut down most of the nuke plants worldwide. 

Quote from: jaqeboy on July 26, 2008, 10:16 PM NHFTThe reason libertarians oppose nuclear power is that it wouldn't exist in the free market - no one would insure it. The only reason the industry exists in the US is because of the Price-Anderson Act, of which was stated:

QuotePrice-Anderson successfully removed the deterrent to private sector participation in the nation's nuclear power programs.3

or, from the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act):

QuoteAt the time of the Act's passing, it was considered necessary as an incentive for the private production of nuclear power — this was because investors were unwilling to accept the then-unquantified risks of nuclear energy without some limitation on their liability.

That Wikipedia goes on to talk about how the Price-Anderson act first required the nuclear plant builders to purchase insurance, and only then indemnified them beyond that. It's a classic case of the government using aggression to try to fix a mess they made with prior aggression.

In a truly free market, insurance wouldn't be required, and someone would surely be brave (or perhaps foolish, if the plants really are as unsafe as some believe) to build one without insurance. I imagine that after the first uninsured plant was built, either one of two things would happen: Either there'd be no incidents, in which case other more timid investors would be emboldened to support the building of new plants, or there'd be an incident, in which case such investors would be permanently scared off of future investments in nuclear energy. (This is of course a gross simplification, but I think it captures the essence of how a truly free market would work.)

Quote from: David on July 28, 2008, 05:52 PM NHFT
I do not believe a person has the right to own, (property rights) something for which if a 'accident' occurs they could never provide compensation for.

You can never provide complete compensation for a single killing of another human being. So you want to take away everyone's firearms... knives... automobiles... hammers... and all other property that could be used to kill someone?

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on July 28, 2008, 06:19 PM NHFT

Quote from: David on July 28, 2008, 05:52 PM NHFT
I do not believe a person has the right to own, (property rights) something for which if a 'accident' occurs they could never provide compensation for.

You can never provide complete compensation for a single killing of another human being. So you want to take away everyone's firearms... knives... automobiles... hammers... and all other property that could be used to kill someone?

???

Yeah. Wanna clarify, David?

I don't understand what the problem some folk have with nuclear power plants. Its great technology. I don't buy for a second that it would never have been created in a free market. It's clean, reusable, technology. The best power providing technology out there. If there was a free market it would be even better.

Quote from: Porcupine on July 28, 2008, 07:56 PM NHFT

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on July 28, 2008, 06:19 PM NHFT

Quote from: David on July 28, 2008, 05:52 PM NHFT
I do not believe a person has the right to own, (property rights) something for which if a 'accident' occurs they could never provide compensation for.

You can never provide complete compensation for a single killing of another human being. So you want to take away everyone's firearms... knives... automobiles... hammers... and all other property that could be used to kill someone?

???

Yeah. Wanna clarify, David?

Thinking about this further, this argument for a sort of "preëmptive self-defense" (if I'm understanding David's argument correctly, which I may not be) justifies pretty much all government safety regulation. The EPA, FDA, OSHA, &c., all exist to make sure a company doesn't cause an accident that they could never provide compensation for.

Oh yeah, I know the justification for regulatory statism I was just wondering if David could clarify his perspective because it seems a very anti-freedom mind-set to have.

QuoteThe EPA, FDA, OSHA, &c., all exist to make sure a company doesn't cause an accident that they could never provide compensation for.

The difference is that insurance purchased on the open market provides for compensation after an accident rather than trying to insist on safety procedures prior so as to not cause an accident via a regulatory agency. Now it is true that the insurers will more than likely heavily monitor their insured for safety purposes to protect their interests but that is a private entity.

Ending limited laibility protection and requiring insurance would all but end the nuclear power industry.

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on July 28, 2008, 06:19 PM NHFT

Quote from: David on July 28, 2008, 05:52 PM NHFT
I do not believe a person has the right to own, (property rights) something for which if a 'accident' occurs they could never provide compensation for.

You can never provide complete compensation for a single killing of another human being. So you want to take away everyone's firearms... knives... automobiles... hammers... and all other property that could be used to kill someone?

No.  You are right about compensation for killing.  But harm can be quantified, not easily, but doable.  I oppose crimes against humanity.  Your examples are all relatively harmless compared to a single bad 'accident' of a nuke plant.  The compensation is withing the realm of payability. 

But, within reality, there will be many, many nuke plants.  The Clamshell people will not stop very many of them.  I believe there will likely be another use of nuclear bombs within my lifetime.  I am not too horribly worried about it, mostly because I cannot control it.  But when it happens, it will be impossible to hide it the way the holocaust in Japan was hidden, or the Chernoble accident.  And when it happens, what is previously 'propaganda', will become common knowledge.   :-\

Quote from: BillKauffman on July 28, 2008, 10:07 PM NHFT

QuoteThe EPA, FDA, OSHA, &c., all exist to make sure a company doesn't cause an accident that they could never provide compensation for.

The difference is that insurance purchased on the open market provides for compensation after an accident rather than trying to insist on safety procedures prior so as to not cause an accident via a regulatory agency. Now it is true that the insurers will more than likely heavily monitor their insured for safety purposes to protect their interests but that is a private entity.

Ending limited laibility protection and requiring insurance would all but end the nuclear power industry.

There is that word 'requiring'... by whose authority.
If I can't require you to have auto insurance... and more people die in auto accidents than other formats.
Why the heck should I require someone else to insure against the possible, but impropable outcomes from their efforts.

Quote from: David on July 28, 2008, 10:28 PM NHFT

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on July 28, 2008, 06:19 PM NHFT

Quote from: David on July 28, 2008, 05:52 PM NHFT
I do not believe a person has the right to own, (property rights) something for which if a 'accident' occurs they could never provide compensation for.

You can never provide complete compensation for a single killing of another human being. So you want to take away everyone's firearms... knives... automobiles... hammers... and all other property that could be used to kill someone?

No.  You are right about compensation for killing.  But harm can be quantified, not easily, but doable.  I oppose crimes against humanity.  Your examples are all relatively harmless compared to a single bad 'accident' of a nuke plant.  The compensation is withing the realm of payability. 

But, within reality, there will be many, many nuke plants.  The Clamshell people will not stop very many of them.  I believe there will likely be another use of nuclear bombs within my lifetime.  I am not too horribly worried about it, mostly because I cannot control it.  But when it happens, it will be impossible to hide it the way the holocaust in Japan was hidden, or the Chernoble accident.  And when it happens, what is previously 'propaganda', will become common knowledge.   :-\

Crimes against humanity? The Iraq war is based on 'crimes against humanity'.
The Regime was murdering hundreds of people, had made hostile moves against at least two countries, and had offered a $25,000 reward to the families of suicide bombers that murdered specific targets in their act.
A pretty bold jump of circumstances can be made under the heading of protecting humanity.

Quote from: BillKauffman on July 28, 2008, 10:07 PM NHFT

QuoteThe EPA, FDA, OSHA, &c., all exist to make sure a company doesn't cause an accident that they could never provide compensation for.

The difference is that insurance purchased on the open market provides for compensation after an accident rather than trying to insist on safety procedures prior so as to not cause an accident via a regulatory agency. Now it is true that the insurers will more than likely heavily monitor their insured for safety purposes to protect their interests but that is a private entity.

Ending limited laibility protection and requiring insurance would all but end the nuclear power industry.

We weren't talking about insurance vs. regulation here: This was in response to David's assertion that some forms of preëmptive self-defense are justifiable. Regulation could be considered a form of preëmptive self-defense.

Quote from: David on July 28, 2008, 10:28 PM NHFT

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on July 28, 2008, 06:19 PM NHFT

Quote from: David on July 28, 2008, 05:52 PM NHFT
I do not believe a person has the right to own, (property rights) something for which if a 'accident' occurs they could never provide compensation for.

You can never provide complete compensation for a single killing of another human being. So you want to take away everyone's firearms... knives... automobiles... hammers... and all other property that could be used to kill someone?

No.  You are right about compensation for killing.  But harm can be quantified, not easily, but doable.  I oppose crimes against humanity.  Your examples are all relatively harmless compared to a single bad 'accident' of a nuke plant.  The compensation is withing the realm of payability. 

But, within reality, there will be many, many nuke plants.  The Clamshell people will not stop very many of them.  I believe there will likely be another use of nuclear bombs within my lifetime.  I am not too horribly worried about it, mostly because I cannot control it.  But when it happens, it will be impossible to hide it the way the holocaust in Japan was hidden, or the Chernoble accident.  And when it happens, what is previously 'propaganda', will become common knowledge.   :-\

A sufficiently well-built nuke plant shouldn't have an accident à la Chernobyl. We've never had a nuke accident in the United States on that scale, only incidents that killed a handful of workers within the plant itself. That's certainly not a good thing, but no different from the safety record of your average non-nuclear power plant.

And, whether or not you can compensate for any killing, at all, is debatable. Compensation is "making the victim whole," and how do you do that when the victim is dead? In fact this is being discussed over here (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15546.msg188334#msg188334) right now.

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on July 30, 2008, 12:37 AM NHFT

Quote from: BillKauffman on July 28, 2008, 10:07 PM NHFT

QuoteThe EPA, FDA, OSHA, &c., all exist to make sure a company doesn't cause an accident that they could never provide compensation for.

The difference is that insurance purchased on the open market provides for compensation after an accident rather than trying to insist on safety procedures prior so as to not cause an accident via a regulatory agency. Now it is true that the insurers will more than likely heavily monitor their insured for safety purposes to protect their interests but that is a private entity.

Ending limited laibility protection and requiring insurance would all but end the nuclear power industry.

We weren't talking about insurance vs. regulation here: This was in response to David's assertion that some forms of preëmptive self-defense are justifiable. Regulation could be considered a form of preëmptive self-defense.

My point was requiring insurance could too because the insurer would monitor their insured for safety reasons  to prevent an accident.

From the perspective of working in power plants (not nukes but oil, natural gas and wood fired boilers, gas turbines and hydro) insurance companies provide a number of services for the premiums paid by the plants.

Knowledgeable experts visit the plant on an annual - or other - basis and inspect the plant equipment and operations. The insurance comapny generates a report detailing where we are deficient with regard to industry best practices, general safety guidelines, etc. The plant management then makes a decision on whether or not to implement some or all of the recommendations based on various criteria.

This is my view of what home/auto insurance companies should be doing for their customers. This would get the government out of the business of home inspections, building codes, vehicle safety, driver training, etc., and out of telling insurance companies what to do.

Home inspections are private.
Building codes are written by the industry... I think government simply adopts them to appear to be doing something.
Vehicle safety is private mechanics... wasn't even a big deal until emissions testing.
And driver training is still a private function, seldom associated with public education.

Presumptive self-defense? I hope your kidding.

Quote from: Pat McCotter on July 30, 2008, 06:17 AM NHFT
From the perspective of working in power plants (not nukes but oil, natural gas and wood fired boilers, gas turbines and hydro) insurance companies provide a number of services for the premiums paid by the plants.

Knowledgeable experts visit the plant on an annual - or other - basis and inspect the plant equipment and operations. The insurance comapny generates a report detailing where we are deficient with regard to industry best practices, general safety guidelines, etc. The plant management then makes a decision on whether or not to implement some or all of the recommendations based on various criteria.

This is my view of what home/auto insurance companies should be doing for their customers. This would get the government out of the business of home inspections, building codes, vehicle safety, driver training, etc., and out of telling insurance companies what to do.

As someone in the insurance industry, this is very well put Pat. Key in fact, nuclear power plants in a regulated market have the best safety record of any kind of power industry. Imagine with a purely market regulated industry what things would be like.

Quote from: John Edward Mercier on July 30, 2008, 06:37 AM NHFT
Home inspections are private.
Building codes are written by the industry... I think government simply adopts them to appear to be doing something.
Vehicle safety is private mechanics... wasn't even a big deal until emissions testing.
And driver training is still a private function, seldom associated with public education.

New construction requires home inspection by government in many locales to ensure compliance with building codes.

Yes, building codes are industry written, government should not be enforcing. Insurance companies and/or building certification firms, should be ensuring the homes meet these or other codes. If I wanted to build my own home and I don't want someone hanging over my shoulder I should be able to do so. Of course, if I want to sell that home it better be certified as safe by a reputable firm - the buyer should be requiring this. And if I want to insure it I would expect the insurance company to give me more service than just promising to give me money if something happens.

Yes, vehicle safety is private mechanics but safety inspections are government mandated in many locales. Again, the insurance company should be providing this service in exchange for those premiums. This could include certifying mechanics as a service to their customers.

Yes, driver training is private and, again, mandated by many state governments for those of a certain age - some even requiring it for some folks over a certain age. Again, the insurance companies are those who will be out money for untrained drivers getting into accidents so they should be basing their premiums on this and maybe even certifying driver training schools for their customers.

I know, you don't want to buy insurance for home or vehicle. We all know how the free market would work if something happened in that case so I am not going to rehash that here.

The insurance companies could certify mechanics for safety inspection, but I think by doing so take on added liability. I do know some towns, and its become a trend, use a building code inspector and permitting (taxing process)... what most don't know is the town has now taken on liability. It has certified the quality of the work... and if a loss can be determined to be from non-code compliance work that was inspected... hang-on.

I believe a lot of this is business learning to avoid liability... and voting residents to numb to know the liability they are taking on.

Yep, that sounds like our current litigious society.

dot?

Quote from: John Edward Mercier on July 30, 2008, 06:37 AM NHFT
Home inspections are private.
Building codes are written by the industry... I think government simply adopts them to appear to be doing something.
Vehicle safety is private mechanics... wasn't even a big deal until emissions testing.
And driver training is still a private function, seldom associated with public education.

Indeed, this is all privately done, but then forced on people by the government. Fascism (partnership between government and private business) at its finest.

Quote from: John Edward Mercier on July 30, 2008, 06:37 AM NHFT
Presumptive self-defense? I hope your kidding.

Presumptive?

The high rates also have to due with several extra's that are now in the system.
Net metering alone was a major improvement.

Great article for the most part. I don't agree with Dr. Miller's beliefs in "Oil shortage" myths that are propagated by the same types of folk that are against nuclear power and am a little saddened that he has bought into them, but that doesn't detract from the value of the piece for me.


Advantages of Nuclear Power

by Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD


  Artemus Ward, Mark Twain's predecessor, once said: "It ain't the things we don't know that gets us into trouble. It's the things we know that just ain't so." Regulators know that exposure to ionizing radiation, even in very low doses, is harmful. They say that no amount of radiation can be proclaimed safe. There is no threshold below which the deleterious effects of radiation cease to appear. This "knowledge" has, indeed, caused us a lot of trouble, and it turns out not to be true. The actual truth is this: Not only are low to moderate doses of ionizing radiation not harmful, low doses of radiation are good for you. It stimulates the immune system and checks oxidation of DNA through a process known as "radiation hormesis" – and thereby prevents cancer. And irradiated mothers bear children that have a reduced incidence of congenital deformities. (See my article Afraid of Radiation? Low Doses are Good for You.)

(http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/plant.jpg)
Colombia Generating Station
Hanford Site, Kennewich, WA
Output: 1,150 MW

Owing to the public's fear of radiation, abetted by the nuclear protection industry and the media, nuclear power in the United States is at a standstill, just when we most need it. Construction on all nuclear power plants ordered after 1974 has stopped, and no orders have been placed for any since 1978. In the last 15 years, 8 nuclear power plants in the U.S. have been shut down because of escalating regulatory costs and public fears about radiation (103 remain).

The U.S. uses fossil fuels, mainly coal and natural gas, to produce 70 percent of its electricity. Nuclear power generates 19 percent and hydroelectric dams the other 11 percent. (Energy obtained directly from the sun, gathered by mirrors or photovoltaic cells, and from wind turbines generates less than one-tenth of one percent of our electricity.) Production of electricity consumes 36 percent of the energy we use.

Oil is now used primarily for transportation – to run our automobiles, trucks, airplanes, ships, and most buses and railroad trains. Overall, the U.S. obtains 85 percent of its energy from fossil fuels – about half from oil and the other half equally from coal and natural gas. (Before drilling for oil began in the 1800s, humans had just two main sources of energy, other than their own manual labor: wood and animals. Today, rather than ride horses, teenagers compare the horsepower of their automobiles.)

Compared to coal and hydroelectric dams, nuclear power is the safest and cleanest way, from an environmental standpoint, to produce electricity. And the fuel it uses, uranium, is more abundant than fossil fuels (or rivers left to be dammed). In contrast to the U.S., other countries do recognize the advantages of nuclear power. France uses nuclear power to generate 77 percent of its electricity, and 35 nuclear power plants are currently under construction around the world, 24 of them in Asia.

With 442 nuclear power plants operating in 32 countries for a cumulative 10,000 reactor-years of commercial operation, Chernobyl, in the former Soviet Union, is the only accident in the history of nuclear power where any radiation-related fatalities have occurred. In that accident (in 1986) radioactivity from part of the reactor's overheated core escaped into the atmosphere. Acute radiation sickness affected 134 employees and 28 died. An estimated 70 extra cases of thyroid cancer occurred in children as a result of the accident, which could have been prevented by timely ingestion of potassium iodide. Otherwise, no increase in the incidence of other cancers occurred (despite dire predictions, based on the linear no-threshold hypothesis, that 110,000 new cancers would occur due to radioactive fallout from the accident). Chernobyl's real victims were 200,000 pregnant women in Europe who, caught up in a wave of radiophobic hysteria, feared that their fetuses would be damaged by radiation from the fallout and had their pregnancies terminated. Low dose radiation does not cause genetic defects, and fetuses exposed to radiation from Chernobyl that were not aborted developed normally and did not have any increased incidence of congenital abnormalities or genetic defects.

Chernobyl is unique. That kind of accident will not happen in any other nuclear power plants because all the reactors currently in operation around the world are placed inside a containment building (Chernobyl was not). The reactor core meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979, which happened when its core cooling system failed, also produced a lot of radiation; but the containment building the reactor was housed in kept it from being released into the atmosphere, and there were no injuries or deaths.

All the nuclear power plants in the U.S. are second-generation reactors, based on designs derived from those made for naval use. Third generation reactors, with an output of 600 MW, are simpler, smaller, more rugged, and reduce substantially the possibility of a core meltdown accident, from a likelihood of 1 in 20,000 to 1 in 800,000 per reactor year. (Third generation reactors have, for example, 80 percent fewer control cables and 60 percent less piping.) They are standardized to expedite licensing and reduce construction time. Fourth generation fusion reactors, one hopes, will be coming into operation in the foreseeable future.

On the Columbia River System, in my part of the world, 75 people died building the Grand Coulee Dam. Failure of the Teton Dam on a tributary of the Snake River near Idaho Falls (in 1976) killed 14 people, obliterated one town (Wilford), severely damaged several others, and caused $3 billion (2002 dollars) in property damage. The energy released when this dam ruptured was the equivalent of ten (20-kiloton) atom bombs, and it caused the greatest flood in North America since the last ice age. (Fortunately, the dam failed during the daytime, which saved thousands of lives because workers were there to warn the populace downstream to evacuate, before phone lines went down.) The St. Francis Dam near Valencia, California collapsed (in 1928) and killed 450 people. The Machu Dam in India killed 2,500 people when it ruptured in 1979.

Compared to nuclear power, coal is a much less safe source of energy. In addition to the pollutants and carcinogens coal delivers into the atmosphere when burned, 100 coal miners are killed each year in the U.S. in coal mine accidents and another 100 die transporting it. Per amount of electricity produced, hydropower causes 110 fold, coal, 45 fold, and natural gas, 10 fold more deaths than nuclear power. As Petr Beckmann, founding editor of Access to Energy, shows in his book The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear, nuclear power is the safest source of energy in all aspects, not excluding terrorism and sabotage, major accidents, and waste disposal.

From an environmental standpoint, nuclear power is far superior to coal or hydropower.
(http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/colombia.jpg)

In the U.S., coal is strip-mined (the way we get 60 percent of it) at a rate of more than 65,000 acres per year, with over a million acres awaiting reclamation. Of the 8 million acres that overlie underground mines (to obtain the other 40 percent), one-fourth of that acreage has subsided. When burned, the carbon in coal combines with oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO2) and carbon monoxide (CO). A large coal-burning plant that produces as much electricity as a nuclear power plant burns 3 million tons of coal annually, which generates 11 million tons of CO2 (700 lbs. per second). Coal contains sulfur, 0.5 to 3 percent by weight, which combines with oxygen to form sulfur dioxide, the principal cause of acid rain; and the nitrogen in it produces nitrous oxide, a major pollutant (a 1,000 megawatt coal plant produces as much nitrous oxide as 200,000 automobiles). It contains health-damaging heavy metals like lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, and beryllium. Coal also has uranium in it in a concentration of 1 to 2 parts per million. As a result, a coal-fired plant releases up to 50 times more radioactivity than a nuclear plant, where the radiation emitted by uranium and its byproducts is contained. (The EPA ignores this fact.)

Hydropower is even worse. Hydroelectric dams generate 85 percent of the electricity produced in my state (Washington). The dams in the Columbia River Basin have had a devastating impact on its ecosystem. It began with the New Deal, in 1932, when the Army Corps of Engineers submitted a study of the river to President Roosevelt identifying ten promising locations for dams. Beginning with the Bonneville Dam, built by the Corps of Engineers, and the Grand Coulee Dam, built by the Bureau of Reclamation, over the next 40 years these two federal agencies built 30 major dams on the Columbia and Snake River system. Its largest, the Grand Coulee Dam, blocks salmon access to more than 1,000 miles of productive river. Called the "cesspool of the New Deal" (by a New York newspaper), its 125 square mile reservoir inundated 12 towns with 1,200 buildings.

The hydroelectric dams in the Columbia River Basin (along with hatcheries that the Bureau established to mitigate their effects on fish) have been instrumental in reducing the number of wild salmon that come back up the Columbia River each year to spawn, from 10 to 16 million to less than 200,000 now, a 98 percent decline. Eliminating the nutrients (obtained eating crustaceans and plant life in the ocean) that salmon provide for the Basin has had a major impact on its ecosystem. Salmon gain 90 percent of their body weight at sea and carry the nutrients obtained there back to their home stream. Grizzly bears, for example, obtain up to 90 percent of the nitrogen in their bones and hair from the salmon they eat. The environmental impact of the decline of salmon is reflected in these Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife estimates: the Basin's population of fur-bearing mammals has declined from 13,000 to 500; game birds dependent on this landscape, from 120,000 to 2,000; and winter songbirds, from 95,000 to 3,000. Twelve second-generation nuclear power plants would produce as much electricity as all the hydroelectric dams that have been built in this Basin, at a negligible environmental cost.

Nuclear energy (that uranium 235 and uranium 238-derived plutonium produce) emits no harmful gases or toxic metals into the environment. And, unlike hydroelectric dams, it does not alter a region's ecosystem. Furthermore, despite what activists and the media say, the wastes nuclear power create are far less of a problem than those produced by coal, or the silt that builds up behind dams. One pound of uranium produces 20,000 times more energy than one pound of coal. A nuclear power plant generates (high-level) radioactive wastes the size of one aspirin tablet per person per year (a plant's yearly wastes fit comfortably under a dining room table). Coal-fired plants generate 320 lbs. of ash and other poisons per person per year, of which 10 percent is spewed into the atmosphere. Disposal personnel encapsulate nuclear waste in (fireproof, water-proof, and earthquake-proof) boron-silicate glass or ceramic and then bury these now effectively non-radioactive artificial rocks. In the U.S., these "rocks" will (in 2010) be buried deep in extremely arid ground in a remote part of Nevada, in a repository at Yucca Mountain (where nuclear weapons tests were once conducted). The chance that this encapsulated waste will ever harm anyone is virtually zero (especially given that the linear no-threshold hypothesis now disproved). Waste disposal is not a disadvantage of nuclear power; it is one of its advantages.
(http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/energy-resources.jpg)

Yet another advantage of nuclear power is the relative abundance of its fuel, as this illustration, put together by Petr Beckmann, shows. Uranium is the heaviest of all naturally occurring elements and is present in most of the earth's crust. There is enough uranium 235 (box C), the fuel for current-day U.S. nuclear reactors, to keep them operating through most of this century. But uranium 238 (99 percent of natural uranium), fuels breeder reactors. Breeder reactors turn uranium-238 into plutonium. As Bernard Cohen points out in his book, The Nuclear Energy Option (in Chapter 13, which is available online), the supply of uranium 238 on the planet to run breeder reactors will last thousands of years.
(http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/triange-map.jpg)

The Golden Triangle and US Military Bases in the Persian Gulf

Oil is dwindling fast in the U.S. In 1950 America produced one-half of the world's oil and consumed 6 million barrels per day (MBPD), which was more oil than all the rest of the world consumed. Today the U.S. produces 4 percent of the world's oil and consumes 20 MBPD, and the rest of the world consumes close to 60 MBPD. (China, with its 1.2 billion people, leads the race in growing oil consumption, and it has to import an increasing percentage of the oil that it consumes. India, with one billion people, is close behind.)

Sixty percent of the known oil in the world lies within this "golden triangle" in the Middle East. Oil wells there pump 10,000 barrels per day, compared with wells in the U.S that pump 300 barrels per day. U.S. oil reserves have now dropped to the point that if we were not able to import any oil, at the current rate of consumption, we would exhaust our 22-billion barrel reserve and run out of oil in three years.
(http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/oil-map.jpg)

The "War on Terror," as the Bush Administration has chosen to prosecute it, is designed to further American energy interests. It's "all about oil." In addition to U.S. bases in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and the 14 new ones that are planned for Iraq, the U.S. has also established military bases, known as "power projection hubs," in Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, and Oman. One base in Qatar, one of several in that country, is particularly valued by the Air Force because it has a three-mile long runway.

Iraq has 11 percent of the world's oil, five times as much as the U.S. now has. The only country with more is Saudi Arabia. This map, prepared by the National Energy Policy Development Group, chaired by Vice-President Cheney (obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act) shows the location and extent of Iraq's known oilfields and divides the western part of the country into nine exploration blocks.

Central Asia is another important source of oil and natural gas. (America's natural gas wells now produce only one-third the amount of gas they did 30 years ago.) The problem is how to get it out. One of the Bush Administration's goals in occupying Afghanistan is to build a pipeline through that country to the Arabian Sea that avoids going through Russia or Iran. With the Taliban running Afghanistan there was no hope that this pipeline could be built.

There is another way to get oil for our automobiles and airplanes, which would eliminate the need for the United States to import any Middle Eastern or Central Asian oil. American entrepreneurs are marketing a new technology called a "thermal conversion process" that can make oil out of various agricultural, industrial, and municipal wastes; and nuclear power is the best source of electricity to run it. The process employs a technique known as thermal depolymerization, which in essence mimics the geothermal process that created our fossil fuels, notably oil. Wastes subjected to temperatures of 500 degrees F and pressures of 600 pounds per square inch, under controlled conditions, will produce light oil that is half diesel and half gasoline.

You can put most anything in it – sewage sludge, plastic bottles, old tires, turkey offal, wet bandages and needles. If a 175 lb. person accidentally got caught in the process, it would turn him into 38 pounds of oil, 7 pounds of purified minerals, 7 pounds of methane gas, and 123 pounds of water. Putting all the country's agricultural wastes through this process would produce 4 billion barrels of oil, the amount we currently import from OPEC each year.

What about solar power and windmills as an alternative source of energy? California is the leader in developing solar power. Its Solar Two Plant in the Mojave Desert has a peak output of 10 megawatts. In order to produce as much energy as a 1,000-megawatt nuclear reactor, its mirrors would have to occupy 127 square miles of land. The Solar Electric Generating System in Kramer Junction, CA has a higher output – 100 megawatts. This system currently generates 90 percent of the world's direct solar electricity. (It has rows of mirror-like shiny surfaces that focus sunlight onto tubes filled with therminol fluid running along the top of the array, which turns water into steam to power the turbines.) Its mirrors have to be washed every five to ten days to maintain a reasonable (70 percent) optical efficiency. It requires 33 square miles of mirrors for this system to produce as much electricity as one nuclear power plants. Also, solar plants require substantial government subsidies and tax credits to make the electricity they produce economically feasible.

The Nine Canyon Wind Project in my state completed its Phase II expansion last year, adding 12 new wind turbines to the previously existing 37. With the wind blowing hard, they have a peak output of 64 megawatts. Based on the average wind speed there it would take 50,000 wind turbines of this size, in a 300 square mile area, to generate the same amount of electricity one nuclear power plant produces. (If they were made to the height of a 20-story building, it would take only 1,000 windmills to produce that amount of power.)

Windmills kill a lot of birds. They act as bait and executioner for birds because rodent populations multiply rapidly at their base, and the birds get killed trying to get at them. The windmills on Altamont Pass east of San Francisco, for example, kill eight times as many bald eagles each year as those that died in the one-time Valdez oil spill in Alaska. This is also a problem with solar energy. Bird deaths per megawatt of electricity generated by solar plants are higher than at Altamont Pass, a result of their flying into its mirror-like surfaces. Despite the enthusiasm politicians and the media exhibit for solar and wind power, these sources of energy, compared with nuclear power, produce tiny amounts electricity; and they harm the environment. They cannot replace fossil fuels, or nuclear power.

The many billions of dollars our government is spending occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, to ensure a continued supply of fossil fuels, would be much better spent building nuclear reactors.

Our country needs to bring the troops home and start building third (and fourth) generation nuclear power plants, like China and other Asian nations are doing. The War on Terror will not be won, with our adversary employing fourth-generation-warfare suicide attacks on civilians in one's homeland, until our country pulls its stick out of the hornet's nest. The only way Muslim terrorists are going to leave us, and our soon-to-be former allies like Spain alone is if we pull all of our troops out of the Middle East, and leave them alone.

This is perhaps the greatest advantage of nuclear power, coupled with new technologies like thermal depolymerization. It will better enable our country to follow the advice its first President gave us in his Farewell Address – to conduct dealings with other nations in the marketplace, not on the battlefield. Building nuclear power plants can help end the War on Terror, in addition to keeping our lights and computers on.

April 14, 2004 (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/miller.jpg)

Donald Miller is a cardiac surgeon and Professor of Surgery at the University of Washington in Seattle and a member of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness and writes articles on a variety of subjects for LewRockwell.com, including bioterrorism. His web site is www.donaldmiller.com.

Copyright © 2004 LewRockwell.com

http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller13.html

Porcupine thanks for the article. I found parts of it informative and parts misleading.  Windmills kill birds? Duh...put a screen around it or better yet eat the fucking birds. We put people on the moon and can't keep a windmill from killing birds? Made me think he was cheerleading for nuclear power and biased. I'm on the fence regarding nuclear power and want to get more info. as my hippie brainwashing has made me anti nuke for some time. I'm open to a better understanding of both pros and cons so I'll reread the nuke part, I might learn something.

There was no mention of conservation of our energy use, or deregulating things so vehicles that get better miles per gallon could be used.  I'd also like to see more decentralized power generation as in micro hydro and solar.  I'm not a fan of power companies regardless of how they make the juice.

One thing I did agree with, the War for oil.  He nailed that one. It's pretty scary the way the whole terrorist scam has played out,  we are a nation of sheep.

I missed where he stated there was an oil shortage.

Quote from: Free libertarian on August 07, 2008, 07:16 AM NHFT
Porcupine thanks for the article. I found parts of it informative and parts misleading.  Windmills kill birds? Duh...put a screen around it or better yet eat the fucking birds. We put people on the moon and can't keep a windmill from killing birds?

Yep, screens will work. ;D

(http://www.palmsprings.com/services/images/windmill.jpg)
This wind farm on the San Gorgonio Mountain Pass in the San Bernadino Mountains contains more than 4000 separate windmills and provides enough electricity to power Palm Springs and the entire Coachella Valley.

Quote from: Free libertarian on August 07, 2008, 07:16 AM NHFT
Made me think he was cheerleading for nuclear power and biased.

He is.

Quote from: Free libertarian on August 07, 2008, 07:16 AM NHFT
I'm on the fence regarding nuclear power and want to get more info. as my hippie brainwashing has made me anti nuke for some time. I'm open to a better understanding of both pros and cons so I'll reread the nuke part, I might learn something.

There was no mention of conservation of our energy use, or deregulating things so vehicles that get better miles per gallon could be used.  I'd also like to see more decentralized power generation as in micro hydro and solar.

Solar for electricity and water heating, yes! Micro-hydro where feasible, yes! Biomass where sustainable, please! It won't completely replace the base loads we require but these will lessen our need for all that coal for electricity. Then we can take that coal and convert it to diesel fuel (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060414014526.htm)!

Quote from: Free libertarian on August 07, 2008, 07:16 AM NHFT
I'm not a fan of power companies regardless of how they make the juice.

One thing I did agree with, the War for oil.  He nailed that one. It's pretty scary the way the whole terrorist scam has played out,  we are a nation of sheep.

Quote from: John Edward Mercier on August 07, 2008, 08:36 AM NHFT
I missed where he stated there was an oil shortage.

"Oil is dwindling fast in the U.S. In 1950 America produced one-half of the world's oil and consumed 6 million barrels per day (MBPD), which was more oil than all the rest of the world consumed. "

Quote from: Free libertarian on August 07, 2008, 07:16 AM NHFT
Made me think he was cheerleading for nuclear power and biased.

Its a pro-nuclear power article. Of course he is biased and cheerleading. None of which makes a difference in the fact the he is right. Nuclear power is the best and cleanest electricity generating technology there is. It is a well thought out and written and backed article.

The health hazards of NOT going nuclear (http://www.amazon.com/Health-Hazards-Not-Going-Nuclear/dp/0911762175) by Petr Beckmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petr_Beckmann) (My copy is dated June 1980 with a "Post-Three Mile Island Preface."

The Non-Problem of Nuclear Wastes (http://www.amazon.com/The-Non-Problem-of-Nuclear-Wastes/dp/B000K4Z416/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218121217&sr=8-7) by Petr Beckmann dated 1979 (16-page pamphlet)

Quote from: Porcupine on August 07, 2008, 09:26 AM NHFT

Quote from: John Edward Mercier on August 07, 2008, 08:36 AM NHFT
I missed where he stated there was an oil shortage.

"Oil is dwindling fast in the U.S. In 1950 America produced one-half of the world's oil and consumed 6 million barrels per day (MBPD), which was more oil than all the rest of the world consumed. "

So the fact that other countries now produce a significant amount of crude? Or that the US no longer uses 50%+ of the production is considered a shortage?

The problem of energy has always been acquiring, harnessing, and distributing it. The problem with electricity (instead of liquid fuels) is in the distribution and harnessing. The grid can only handle so much at this time, and certain sections are worse than others... and harnessing for transport has been less than compelling to date.
Many Quebecois homes are completely electrical, with the extra production being transmitted to the US... but the Quebecois transportation system is still based on liquid fuels.

IMHO this is the real story.

"There is another way to get oil for our automobiles and airplanes, which would eliminate the need for the United States to import any Middle Eastern or Central Asian oil. American entrepreneurs are marketing a new technology called a "thermal conversion process" that can make oil out of various agricultural, industrial, and municipal wastes; and nuclear power is the best source of electricity to run it. The process employs a technique known as thermal depolymerization, which in essence mimics the geothermal process that created our fossil fuels, notably oil. Wastes subjected to temperatures of 500 degrees F and pressures of 600 pounds per square inch, under controlled conditions, will produce light oil that is half diesel and half gasoline."

I've been following it for a few years.

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/anything-oil

Notice that two years ago he was having difficulties since his production costs turned out to be about $80 per barrel. Fast forward two years and it's no longer a problem.

http://www.changingworldtech.com/index.asp

Quote from: William on August 07, 2008, 12:50 PM NHFT
I've been following it for a few years.

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/anything-oil

Notice that two years ago he was having difficulties since his production costs turned out to be about $80 per barrel. Fast forward two years and it's no longer a problem.

http://www.changingworldtech.com/index.asp

I've been following him also. I was really getting pissed when he talked about going to Europe because they would give him subsidies the US govt wouldn't. If it's viable you don't need govt!!!!!!!

He has the working plant in Carthage, MO. Get it working to the satisfaction of the town fathers (though singling him out for obnoxious odor was a real stretch) and get the next folks on line to build a trash conversion plant. That will show municipalities how important this technology is.

So does he need municipal government or not?

I would suppose not. They just came to mind because they are the biggest customers of trash to energy plants. The private haulers don't get much mention but they could really benefit from this. Waste Management should get in negotitation with the company. Then again, maybe they are.

So this could work out pretty well. A small private company could maybe get an additional revenue stream, while further decreasing costs associated with landfill.

Now, if they would just license the technology. But then I guess they would want to prove it before they did that. The uncertain waste stream from garbage wreaks havoc on the process, I understand.

Quote from: Pat McCotter on August 08, 2008, 12:28 PM NHFT
I would suppose not. They just came to mind because they are the biggest customers of trash to energy plants. The private haulers don't get much mention but they could really benefit from this. Waste Management should get in negotitation with the company. Then again, maybe they are.

Dunno about that operation, but WM is involved with generating electricity from landfill methane.

http://www.wastemanagement.com/wm/features/dell.asp

Austin landfill lights up Dell

AUSTIN, Texas – Waste Management has just taken another step forward in its goal to expand production of landfill gas. On April 3, WM and Dell announced that the computer manufacturer would power its corporate operations using electricity generated at WM's Austin Community Landfill.

Waste Management will supply 40 percent of the power needed to run Dell's headquarters in Round Rock, Texas. This is one more project launched by WM that will help the company reach its goal of increasing its landfill-gas-to-energy (LFGTE) production, according to CEO David Steiner. "In the past we've been seen as a garbage company," Steiner said. "Now we see ourselves as a company that provides renewable resources from the waste streams that we manage."


http://www.thinkgreen.com/waste-as-a-resource

Landfill methane is good and one of the reasons I thought of WM in relatio to this - as well as them being one of the largest waste haulers, landfill operators.

TDP, the technology, is supposed to be able to break down any organic material to hydrocarbons and other constituent, often reusable, minerals. Using this in a waste stream should drastically reduce the size of our landfills.

Quote from: Pat McCotter on August 08, 2008, 02:25 PM NHFT
Now, if they would just license the technology. But then I guess they would want to prove it before they did that. The uncertain waste stream from garbage wreaks havoc on the process, I understand.

Yes, it's important that the content (moisture and otherwise) be consistent. The process can be tweaked but constant tweaking is inefficient. That's why he is currently only using turkey offal and still must be sure to maintain a consistent ratio of feathers to guts.

I couldn't find a link to the article, so here's the whole interesting artle.
=========================================

Beyond Nuclear Bulletin
September 4, 2008

Top Stories
Help Us Block Latest $166 Billion Money Grab by Nuclear Power Industry [Free market, eh?]

Background: Congress will soon return from summer recess, and is likely to immediately consider energy legislation. These bills, which would allow offshore oil drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf as a supposed response to high gasoline prices, also contain massive taxpayer subsidies for the nuclear power industry.

Introduced a month ago, the "New Energy Reform Act of 2008" has not yet been put in legislative form and still lacks a bill number. The plan is sponsored by such bipartisan pro-nuclear Senators as Republicans Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson of Georgia, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, as well as Democrats Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

The subsidies – ranging between $87 billion and $166 billion would pay for: increasing the number of Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff to expedite new reactor licensing; authorizing "risk insurance" for nuclear utilities if the startup of their new reactors is delayed for any reason; training nuclear workers; supporting the re-establishment of a U.S. industrial infrastructure for manufacturing large nuclear components such as reactor pressure vessels; and building a demonstration radioactive waste reprocessing facility. An expansion of federal loan guarantees for new reactors would leave taxpayers on the hook for up to $160 billion if nuclear utilities default on loan repayments.

A companion bill led by Republicans in the House, the "Americans for American Energy Act of 2008" (HR 6384), would: subsidize radioactive waste reprocessing; fast-track the opening of a reprocessing facility; remove congressional oversight on Yucca Mountain dumpsite spending;  block consideration of radioactive waste from new reactor license proceedings; grant tax breaks to nuclear component manufacturers; fund nuclear engineering scholarships; support nuclear workforce expansion; and award cash prizes for new ideas on how to store radioactive wastes. This bill could give $120 billion of taxpayer money to the nuclear industry.

Our View: It's ironic that massive subsidies for nuclear energy – which claims a place among climate change solutions – have been slipped into a bill promoting off-shore oil drilling. It is clear that the nuclear power industry – the most subsidized in the energy sector over the past 50 years – is less interested in climate change than in using that real crisis to carve out for itself another giant slice of the federal funding pie. This money is wasted on nuclear energy when micro-power and nega-watts are dramatically outcompeting nuclear power in the marketplace according to the Rocky Mountain Institute analysis, "The Nuclear Illusion."

What You Can Do: Call your two U.S. Senators and your U.S. Representative right away: call (202) 224-3121 to be patched through to your Congress Members. Urge them to block any legislation that would further subsidize the nuclear power industry, and to support renewable and efficiency solutions to our energy and climate crises. Organize your friends, families and co-workers. We must light up the Capitol switchboard.

From the Campaign Trail

Beyond Nuclear now has a copy of Barack Obama's official position on nuclear energy. For your information, here is it verbatim. (No updates or further details as yet on nuclear policy from the McCain campaign.)

Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy: Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our noncarbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power from the table. However, there is no future for expanded nuclear without first addressing four key issues: public right-to-know, security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. Barack Obama introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate to establish guidelines for tracking, controlling and accounting for spent fuel at nuclear power plants. To prevent international nuclear material from falling into terrorist hands abroad, Obama worked closely with Sen. Dick Lugar (R – IN) to strengthen international efforts to identify and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction. As president, Obama will make safeguarding nuclear material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti-terrorism priority. Obama will also lead federal efforts to look for a safe, long-term disposal solution based on objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, Obama will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry-cask storage technology available. Barack Obama believes that Yucca Mountain is not an option. Our government has spent billions of dollars on Yucca Mountain, and yet there are still significant questions about whether nuclear waste can be safely stored there.

Of Note
The French Nuclear Medusa: Santa Claus threatened with Radioactive Exposure. Areva has applied to mine for uranium in Lapland, the home of Santa Claus, according to traditional Finnish beliefs. Areva is already mired in Finland's costly and heavily delayed new reactor construction at the Olkiluoto site. But now the company wants to exploit the land of the reindeer. Uranium has not been mined in Finland since 1961 and the impact on tourism and the environment are key arguments made by Finnish opponents of uranium mining in Lapland.

Nuclearizing the Middle East. On the heels of French president Nicolas Sarkozy's state visit to Jordan last week, comes the announcement that French state-owned nuclear corporation, Areva, has signed an agreement with Jordan to mine uranium there and to provide the country with uranium enrichment facilities and a civilian reactor. Canada and China also have uranium mining interests in Jordan.

Beyond Nuclear on the Road

Paul Gunter will participate in a debate on nuclear energy and energy alternatives at the Unitarian Universalist Church in Temple Hills, MD on September 13.

Kevin Kamps will speak on a nuclear power panel with Mycle Schneider, Paris-based independent nuclear consultant, and in a workshop on the radioactive waste crisis at the Sept. 10-14 Alliance for Nuclear Accountability conference in Oak Ridge, TN.

Kevin Kamps will participate in the "Know Nuclear in the Tennessee Valley" conference high-level waste policy panel on September 27 in Murfreesboro, TN.

Kevin Kamps will address students at Bowling Green State University-Firelands College, in Huron (OH) on October 2, on renewable and efficiency alternatives to nuclear power and fossil fuels.

Kevin Kamps will participate in the "Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free by 2050: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy" book tour with Dr. Arjun Makhijani and Jennifer Nordstrom of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in Ann Arbor, East Lansing, Kalamazoo, and Monroe, Michigan,  October 3-4.

Please donate to Beyond Nuclear. Won't you please consider becoming a monthly recurring donor? You can set up your profile and monthly giving here. All gifts are tax-deductible. Or you can mail a check to: Beyond Nuclear at NPRI, 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 400, Takoma Park, MD 20912. Thank you!

So this group opposes all subsidies and restrictions on energy production?

I don't know all the groups' positions, or the positions of individual members.

Here's the type of thing I see, which answers the "free market" discussion about the nuclear industy:

QuoteOur View: It's ironic that massive subsidies for nuclear energy – which claims a place among climate change solutions – have been slipped into a bill promoting off-shore oil drilling. It is clear that the nuclear power industry – the most subsidized in the energy sector over the past 50 years – is less interested in climate change than in using that real crisis to carve out for itself another giant slice of the federal funding pie.

IE, they'll use any tactic to get free money from the feds so they can grow when a free market might not entertain their growth.

Quote from: jaqeboy on September 05, 2008, 09:49 AM NHFT
IE, they'll use any tactic to get free money from the feds so they can grow when a free market might not entertain their growth.

Whether a free market would entertain their growth as an industry is immaterial because we don't have one. They are behaving like any other industry that is heavily subsidized/otherwise intwined with government, like other electricity producing industry, the railroads, trucking you name it.

Is there any industry (not individual business) not regulated in some way by government?

Quote from: Pat McCotter on September 05, 2008, 10:01 AM NHFT
Is there any industry (not individual business) not regulated in some way by government?

Some are moreso than others. The nuclear power industry being one of those under the "more" category.

The part I like is where they describe the subsidies.

The subsidies – ranging between $87 billion and $166 billion would pay for: increasing the number of Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff to expedite new reactor licensing; authorizing "risk insurance" for nuclear utilities if the startup of their new reactors is delayed for any reason; training nuclear workers; supporting the re-establishment of a U.S. industrial infrastructure for manufacturing large nuclear components such as reactor pressure vessels; and building a demonstration radioactive waste reprocessing facility.

I can't imagine the nuclear industry cares one way or another about any of this.

More likely... get rid of the NRC, get rid of any outside control over our property, get rid of any non-industry training or licensing requirements... we'll buy components from whomever produces the best product at the best price, and reprocess the 'waste' so we can make a better ROI.

Imagine if you had to go through all this to put solar panels on your roof, or a windmill in your yard.