Sustainable energy solutions are the answer, not new outrageously expensive nuclear construction . (Stop Sign Photo by Tom Moss, BEST/BREDL)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>TVA's Bellefonte Dream
Dear Editor,
I thought Mr. Shurett's Editorial in Saturday/Sunday's The Daily Sentinel this past week concerning nuclear power was interesting but wrong on several points. I want to address a few points he listed in the Editorial.
>
There is never a reason to dismiss a viable proposal but I ask all to consider these facts along with the references listed. There is no conspiracy theory, no exaggeration, just the facts. 10 reasons I think nuclear power is a bad idea for our community.
>>
The following facts are presented, I will list references at the end of this writing. (1) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has documented nearly 200 “near misses” to serious reactor accidents in the US since 1986, eight of which involved a risk of a core meltdown that was greater than one in 1,000. (2) A recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists has shown that of the 104 nuclear power reactors in the United States, severe problems have caused 41 to shut down for a year or longer, with some registering multiple shutdowns. Such extended shutdowns reveal the degree to which cumulative decay and unattended maintenance issues allow safety margins to deteriorate to levels so low that reactor operations must cease. (3) Nuclear power is the slowest and costliest way to reduce CO2 emissions when compared to efficiency, distributed generation and some renewable sources. (4) Children living near nuclear power plants suffer from higher level of birth defects. A study of medical records found that infant death rates near 5 U.S. nuclear plants increased within two years after the plants opened. The study also found that infant death rates decreased from 15-20% once the plants closed. The decreases in cancer and birth defects continued for 7 years after plant closure. (5) Nuclear power threatens our water supply. According to Bellefonte's Application for a license, it is expected to withdraw 71 million gallons of water per day and loose 46 million gallons per day due to evaporation. The remaining 1/3rd will be returned at much higher temperatures resulting in thermal pollution that severly stresses the surrounding ecosystem. (6) There is no safe level of radiation, no safe dose. Radiation exposures damage reproductive cells and can lead to mutations from generation to generation in humans and animals. Each new exposure to radiation adds to the risks of abortion, mental retardation, spina bifada, heart disease, leukemia and other cancers. (7) TVA debt increased from $22.685 billion 1st quarter 2008 to $23.035 billion 2nd quarter 2008; interest on the debt increased from $20.724 billion 1st quarter to $21.878 billion 2nd quarter; total commitments increased from $55.659 billion 1st quarter to $57.193 billion 2nd quarter. TVA's Bond-debt/interest is in excess of $44.9 billion dollars, $14.9 billion dollars over the TVA Act's $30 billion debt limit. (8) The prospects for nuclear energy as an option are limited by many "unresolved problems," of which "high relative cost" is only one. Others include environment, safety and health issues, nuclear proliferation concerns, and the challenge of long-term waste management. (9) From 2000 through October 2007, nuclear power plant construction costs -- mainly materials, labor and engineering -- have gone up 185 percent! That means a nuclear power plant that would have cost $4 billion to build in 2000 would have cost more than $11 billion to build last October, costs continue to climb. (10) The TVA refuses to release costs of construction of a Bellefonte Nuclear Plant, stating that the costs are "proprietary information." The TVA is an organization of the Federal Government, what type of proprietary information do they need to hide?
>>>
In short, nuclear power is not clean, it is not safe and it is not cheap.
>>>>
The answer to our problems of energy for the future rests in sustainable energy solutions, not future nuclear construction, we can not afford it. One man, T. Boone Pickens has come up with an idea that many think is workable, I agree. If you have not seen his site and read what he has to say I strongly suggest everyone do so. http://www.pickensplan.com/ His wind power plan is workable. The plans usage of natural gas also makes sense, it also moves us away from foreign oil dependance. A natural gas infra-structure also may be utilized to "break ground" for a hydrogen fuel infra-structure for our children's future economy. The future looks bright, if we do not place all our "eggs into the nuclear basket." Placing all those multi billion dollar "eggs into the nuclear basket" may very well have disastrous effects for the TVA and certainly will result in much higher electric bills in each of our mail boxes.
Garry Morgan
>>>>>
References: The Pickens Plan- http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/ ; Nuclear Information and Resource Service- http://www.nirs.org/ ; BREDL- http://www.bredl.org/ ; Union of Concerned Scientists- http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/ ; salon.com- http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/06/02/nuclear_power_price/ ; Dangers of Nuclear Power- http://www.ccnr.org/open_letter.html ; Bloomberg.com- http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=agGMCRlWdMyU&refer=us ; Committee to Bridge the Gap, NRC's Dirty Secret/Security- http://www.committeetobridgethegap.org/pdf/articles/dirtysecret.html ; TVA Financial Filings- http://www.tva.gov/finance/reports/forwardlooking_sec.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment