|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
Commission on Energy Clings to Tired Nuclear Myth: What Does It Mean for Central Illinois? |
Current rating: 0 |
by NIRS
(No verified email address) |
10 Dec 2004
|
|
Exelon owns the Clinton Nuclear Plant, where it has proposed building a future, second reactor. Located about 40 miles upwind from Champaign County, an accident or terrorism that releases radiation from the facility would most likely drift right over us in the prevailing winds. Does anyone know how much money Tim Johnson is raking in from these people? |
A Statement by Michael Mariotte, Executive Director—December 9, 2004
“In a disappointing relapse into 20th century thinking and conventional compromise, the self-described National Commission on Energy has delivered recommendations that impede its stated goal to slow and ultimately reverse climate change. Given the Commission’s industry-loaded leadership, including John Rowe, chief executive of Exelon Corporation, the world’s largest private nuclear power utility, its conclusions on nuclear issues should surprise no one.
“The Commission’s report, Ending the Energy Stalemate, squanders a golden opportunity to tackle the urgent crisis of climate change, recognized by the Commission as an over-riding driver behind the two-year study. Rather than break a stalemate, the something-for-everyone package approach in the Commission’s report would continue lackluster and ineffective energy policies indefinitely. And by accepting the tired myth that nuclear power is ‘carbon-free,’ the Commission trades the chance to mitigate global climate change, instead making climate change inevitable. This is because the enormous capital costs of building any significant number of new reactors would divert limited resources from those technologies that make a meaningful impact on climate change.
“The suggested expenditure of $2 billion of taxpayer money —“for the demonstration of one or two” new reactors—falls far short of the true cost of just one reactor and even two reactors would not make a dent in greenhouse gas emissions, even if nuclear energy was truly carbon free. Buried in the report text lies the revealing yet preposterous admission that reactors in the United States must double or triple over the next 30 to 50 years, and grow ten-fold worldwide in order to have ‘a large impact on greenhouse gas emissions.’
“This absurd pie-in-the-sky thinking is easily debunked by simple math. To meet these goals a new U.S. reactor would have to come on-line every four months for the next 50 years, beginning today. The price tag would soar to at least $800 billion. Add to that the weighty and costly infrastructure, including numerous Yucca Mountain-sized radioactive waste dumps, heightened and necessary new security and safety measures, a couple dozen or more new uranium enrichment plants and the untenable resulting nuclear proliferation risks, and the Commission’s nuclear vision departs from fantasy to downright dangerous.
“In short, the Commission’s findings, once the environmental veneer and rhetoric are stripped out, read like a discredited nuclear industry wish list. The Commission has clung stubbornly to the energy delusions of nuclear power and “clean coal” and produced what amounts to a Nuclear Energy Institute letter to Santa Claus. For that, it deserves nothing more than a lump of coal in its Christmas stocking.”
###
Nuclear Information and Resource Service/World Information Service on Energy |
See also:
http://www.nirs.org/
|
This work is in the public domain |
|
Looks Like $5,000 from Sugar Daddy Exelon for Tim |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Dec 2004
|
Exelon is the most profligate spender in the nuclear energy industry when it comes to buying politicians. It gave out nearly $600,000 in the 2002 election cycle.
What did it get?
Priceless, at least in terms of the influence it bought.
Exelon's CEO got a cushy seat as head of the task force described above. And many in Congress, including our own Tim Johnson, got their share of the take. Tim's not in the Top 20 hogs at Exelon's trough -- Denny Hastert and John Shimkus are though -- but he still stuffed a cool $5K in his pockets for the 2003-2004 election cycle. Don't expect him to question any of Exelon's plans too deeply when it comes to safety or economic viability without huge government subsidies.
Tim Johnson, representing Exelon.
(and, once in awhile, the citizens of the 15th)
See:
http://www.citizen.org/documents/ACF6B48.pdf
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00012890&cycle=2004 |
|
Re: Commission on Energy Clings to Tired Nuclear Myth: What Does It Mean for Central Illinois? |
by fair and balanced
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Dec 2004
|
|
you failed to mention that Exelon also gave obama $66650; $10,000 to jerry costello, and even gave $6000 to jesse jackson jr., i am sure you ment to mention that exelon also buys democrat lawmakers |
|
Re: Commission on Energy Clings to Tired Nuclear Myth: What Does It Mean for Central Illinois? |
by Joe Futrelle
futrelle (nospam) shout.net (verified) |
Current rating: 0
11 Dec 2004
|
> you failed to mention that Exelon also gave obama $66650; $10,000 to jerry costello, and even gave $6000 to jesse jackson jr., i am sure you ment to mention that exelon also buys democrat lawmakers
Right, they do, and I can only assume your point is that neither party should be participating in this kind of crap.
Whenever, in making energy policy, there is a conflict between the public interest and the interest of energy company CEO's and shareholders, the public interest wins, period. Any public servant who fails to call it this way deserves no support from the public whose interest they are disregarding. |
|
Re: Commission on Energy Clings to Tired Nuclear Myth: What Does It Mean for Central Illinois? |
by earth boy
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 Dec 2004
|
we need to stop global warming and get a clean energy sorce that doesnot distroy the ozone.
clean power produced by mother earth, no chemical discharges into the air, or the sea. we can ease up on oil use. every body wins, we need to start using these alternative fuel sources to free our selves from big oil
(I am sure big oil wants to stop any other energy from coming on the market ) this is our chance to make the switch, to a New power source!
we cannot pollute the earth with oil for ever...we have to stop! and this is our chance.We need to go back to pro nuclear power, by far the cleanest of all flues! we can produce more power with less echo-disruption than any other available fuel source known today. it is with in our grasp to change our dependence on big oil.with clean non polluting nuclear power! |
