[an error occurred while processing this directive]

LATEST SUBMISSIONS

A pro-nuclear puff piece

Monday, May 28 at 12:01 AM

This Speakout has not been edited

By M Donahue, Boulder

The pro-nuclear puff piece ("A nuclear renaissance?" 5/19/07) compiled by Hereward Bradley effectively presented one side of the issue. It could not have been written better by the Nuclear Energy Institute, which in fact provided some of the information for the report.

Mr Bradley's wrap up of "the challenges ahead" contains wording that favors the nuclear power industry (I add emphasis): "nuclear power must REMAIN economically competitive..." "...current plants must CONTINUE to operate safely..." .

Based on this article, you'd never imagine that there is a valid, market-based reason that no one has ordered a new US nuclear power plant for over 30 years: nuclear power is very costly, polluting, and its proliferation jeopardizes our futures. This conclusion remains valid despite literally BILLIONS of dollars in ongoing federal subsidies given to private nuclear industries in an attempt to resuscitate this dinosaur.

Why doesn't Mr. Bradley mention that nuclear power is so unsafe that private, for-profit insurance companies will not touch it? It is we, the taxpayers, who have been forced to insure the entire nuclear industry against disastrous events. Our insurance coverage kicks in at a relatively low level and has NO upper limit. We taxpayers are thus on the hook to bail out these uninsurable private companies when their product fails, as it has in the past, and inevitably will again. (Google "Price Anderson Act" for further information about this odious form of corporate welfare).

Why doesn't Mr Bradley detail the fact that nuclear waste must be stored safe from leakage, terrorism, ground water, etc, for tens of thousands of years? Again, despite heavy federal subsidies, no safe storage site is even on the horizon.

Why doesn't Mr Bradley mention that a nuclear power plant, if ordered today, will not even come on line for a decade? That despite federal intervention to shortcut the safety reviews, and the taxpayers being forced to pay one-half the cost of the application process for these private, for-profit plants, no one has committed to building even one new nuclear power plant?

Why doesn't Mr Bradley mention the greenhouse gas release from uranium mining and processing (no less than the Better Business Bureau chastised the Nuclear Energy Institute over misleading advertisement on this issue)? Nor that the cheapest current sources of electrical energy are increased efficiency, and wind power?

Sadly, nuclear power lobbyists and PR firms speak to Congress -and to the Rocky's editors- louder than do citizen activists who, unlike the industry, have no profit motive in their attempt to save us all from costly, polluting mistakes.

READER COMMENTS

M Donahue,
What then is your solution to our current energy crisis? You have a lot of bad things to say about nuclear energy but you do not offer any alternative solutions (other than wind energy - and we've seen how the elitists feel about those towers in their towns). I do suppose however that you believe in human caused global warming by the statement copied from your text below?
(Why doesn't Mr Bradley mention the greenhouse gas release from uranium mining and processing (no less than the Better Business Bureau chastised the Nuclear Energy Institute over misleading advertisement on this issue)? Nor that the cheapest current sources of electrical energy are increased efficiency, and wind power? )

There hasn't been a two sided argument to the global warming issue now has there M Donahue? But the "argument" as Mr. Gore puts it "is over" yet I've never heard anyone on the other side of that issue. I'd hate to have one of these global warming hawks like you on jury judging me for something as you obviously don't care to hear any debate and shut it down by trying to debunk everything or screaming the other side into submission.

Posted by BB on May 30, 2007 07:50 AM

M Donahue...There are six nuclear facilities in the works currently, and there locations have already been selected. Since you live in the Boulder community, evidently you gleaned most of your information from esteemed professors like Ward Churchill. What a laughable and dangerous idiot you have made of your life.

Posted by Golden on May 29, 2007 01:53 AM

You fail to mention federal and state support for the coal, oil and gas industries.

Or maybe you just like the fact that we are dependent on middle eastern oil sources?

Why don't you talk about the millions of dollars spent by anti-nuclear activists needlessly harassing a lawful industry?

I notice that you are quick to complain about other people's connections but you do not mention your own. In fact, by not mentioning your first name, you are effectively anonymous.

As for federally underwritten insurance, did you ever think about the fact that fire protection for the mountainous half of Boulder County is provided by the Federal government? Without Federal fire control expenditures, would any insurance company insure a house west of 6th Street in Boulder?

Speaking of which, where is your house?

From what industry does your income and your family's income derive?

Now that I have sniped back at you, and the honors are even, maybe we can think about constructive solutions to our energy problems instead of throwing rocks at each other.

For the record, I have no investments or connections with any energy industry that I am aware of.

Posted by Yaakov Watkins on May 28, 2007 08:12 AM