Clamshell Reunion

[jaqeboy]

The 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:

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

or, from the Wikipedia article:

At 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).

[jaqeboy]

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

As 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:

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

[Pat McCotter]

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:

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

or, from the Wikipedia article:

At 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
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 and Detroit 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.

[jaqeboy]

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.

[Pat McCotter]

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?

[dalebert]

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.

[41mag]

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

Wikipedia entry on the reactor.

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

[Puke]

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.

[BillKauffman]

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?

[Free libertarian]

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  

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.

[John Edward Mercier]

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.

[BillKauffman]

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?

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.

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.

[jaqeboy]

...
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?

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!"

[jaqeboy]

...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)

[jaqeboy]

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.