New Texas Nuke Plants!

[cosmik debris]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x57903

I felt that this should be cross posted in this group. It seems that GE is planning to build two new reactors at the South Texas Nuclear Power station.

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7BC73B5FAB%2D9E14%2D4755%2D9F08%2D825029089263%7D&siteid=mktw&dist=

Or should that be NOOkUlar?

[sonias]

1. Environmental groups respond

PUBLIC CITIZEN * SEED COALITION * SIERRA CLUB * ENVIRONMENT TEXAS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
June 21, 2006
Contacts:
Tom "Smitty" Smith - Public Citizen - 512-477-1155
Karen Hadden - SEED Coalition - 512 797-8481
Donna Hoffman - Sierra Club - 512-477-1729
Luke Metzger - Environment Texas - 512-478-0388

New Nuclear Plants Too Risky to Build and Too Costly to Operate

AUSTIN Environmental groups today decried NRG Energy Inc.'s plans to build two new reactors at its South Texas nuclear plant site. The costs for the reactors are expected to reach $5 billion and will expose Texans to the risks and radioactive wastes of nuclear power.

Nuclear power is extremely costly and relies on taxpayer subsidies, creates radioactive waste with no long-term disposal solution, and poses security and public health risks.

"Thirty years ago, we were promised that nuclear energy would produce energy 'too cheap to meter', but the costs are still mounting," said Tom "Smitty" Smith, director of Public Citizen's Texas office. "Nuclear plants are too costly to build, too risky to operate and the wastes are still too hot to handle."

The existing Texas reactors built at the site more than twenty years ago cost more than six times the projected estimates and had so many critical flaws that construction was halted and parts of the plant were rebuilt to address serious safety concerns.

Nuclear power continues to be dependent on taxpayer handouts for survival. From 1947 to 1999, the nuclear industry was given more than $115 billion in direct taxpayer subsidies. The management of nuclear waste and the requirements for reactor decommissioning require billions more in additional funds. In comparison, federal government subsidies for wind and solar power totaled only $5.7 billion over the same period 25 times less than nuclear subsidies.

"Radioactive waste generated from nuclear power plants is a threat to public health and requires billions of dollars to manage. Nuclear power also brings with it pollution from uranium mining and the danger of reactor accidents with potentially catastrophic results," said Donna Hoffman of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club. "Do we really want to rely on Homer Simpson technology in making our choices about energy production?"

Nuclear madness has arisen again, risking our health and safety," said Karen Hadden, executive director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition. "Radioactive waste can be converted to materials to make nuclear weapons. We should lead by example and not fuel the international weapons race by creating more of it."

"Nuclear power is deadly and dangerous. The risks from radioactive exposure and accidents are enormous and always have been. Cancer clusters have been found near existing nuclear plants. Current reactors have had serious problems, and we still have no effective way to deal with radioactive waste," continued Hadden. "The myth that nuclear power will reduce carbon that contributes to global warming needs to be exposed, since there are huge amounts of carbon released in the mining and transport of nuclear fuel and waste."

The predicted increase in energy demand can be met more safely and effectively by renewable sources and efficiency measures than through building new nuclear plants.

"Renewable energy and energy efficiency are a viable alternative to nuclear power and conventional fuels, and can meet the country's energy needs without the burdens of carbon emissions or radioactive waste", said Luke Metzger of Environment Texas.

The flaws of nuclear power include cost, waste, security, safety, and proliferation. To learn more, visit www.citizen.org/documents/FatalFlawsSummary.pdf

Of course with our captured agency, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) I don't expect anything but a rubber stamp on the expansion. They're fast tracking 15 new dirty coal power plants. With them it's just a question of how fast can we help industry pollute?

Sonia

[cosmik debris]

2. I am glad to see that they are aware.

I hate to be the last one to know about these things.

[Jack_DeLeon]

3. Good...

we need more nuclear power plants to get us off of all of this coal and oil.

[Vogon_Glory]

4. Anti-Nuclear And Unintended Consequences: Count Me Out

Count me out on joining any anti-nuclear campaigns. We saw what has happened in the aftermath of the successful campaign to halt nuclear power plant construction here in the US. We saw more and more filthy coal-fired power plants, more strip mining, more contamination, more sulfur and mercury into the air, and the pollutants finding its way into Gulf fisheries.

I hope that this time, the nuclear units are closer to today's state of the art and are not built by the same nit-wits who built the original STNP reactors.

[sonias]

5. Both are bad - coal and nukes

While I'm all in favor of diversifying our energy resources and decreasing our dependence on foreign oil, I'm not with you on this one VorgonGlory - nukes are not the way to go. Toxic waste from those power plants are forever. I support renewable energy that can create new jobs and be cleaner for our environment. Texas is already the most polluted state in the country, do we have to add more nuclear toxic waste to this state or this planet.

Do you really think these energy corporations will voluntarily use the best available technology (BAT)? They won't, they're going for the cheaper dirtier methods because they make more money that way. All 15 coal powered plants being proposed are not BAT, they are standard dirty coal. The Nuke industry is owned by the same companies. They won't take any more environmental precaution than they're forced into doing.

Very good site on renewable energy for Texas
http://www.renewabletexas.org/

Don't you feel we're in a time warp, fighting government lying and spying, trying to stop war we were lied into, and stopping more nukes? Bad deja vu.


Sonia

[niccolos_smile]

6. Just fyi

I don't know if many people have seen this but, http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/stories/2004/09/20/daily20.html">Texas leads nation in use of renewable energy, from the San Antonio Business Journal.

[sonias]

7. Ah but we're a big consuming energy state, so we should lead

Good article. Here's a tip niccolos, when you use the link tag leave off the http:// part. Right now your link is broken but I got the URL.

Texas leads nation in use of renewable energy
"With almost 200 EPA Green Power Partners, Texas is leading the way in development of the national green power market. Our Texas Partners are purchasing over 400 million kilowatt hours of green power annually -- roughly equal to the power needed for 40,000 homes each year," says EPA Regional Administrator Richard Greene. "In emissions reduction benefits, this is roughly equal to taking 50,000 cars off the road."

So you see we have the technology, if we only show the leadership and will to do more.

Sonia

[niccolos_smile]

8. Thanks for the tip...

the html on here is a little different than what I'm used too.

Indeed we do have the ability, and more investment in this area would help, as well as making renewable energy cost effective for businesses by offering incentives to use renewable energy. Tax breaks would be the normal suggestion, but with our current tax structure, I don't think that's feasible, definitely not desirable.