DOE Task Force on the Future of Nuclear Power draft report calls for massive national subsidies to prop up dying industry

In Sept., 2016 the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, Task Force on the Future of Nuclear Power, published its Draft Report. The report calls for massive nationalized subsidies, to prop up dirty, dangerous/age-degraded, expensive/un-competitive, atomic reactors across the U.S.

[This Task Force report was cited in NIRS Nov. 2016 report, Too Big to Bail Out. The NIRS report, by its executive director, Tim Judson, estimates that a New York-style bail out, implemented across the U.S., could cost American ratepayers and/or taxpayers, a whopping $280 billion.]

Native American Forum on Nuclear Issues, Oct. 10-11, 2016, U. of NV Las Vegas

Native Community Action Council logoBeyond Nuclear is honored and privileged to be invited by the Native Community Action Council (NCAC) to present at its Native American Forum on Nuclear Issues, taking place on October 10 & 11, 2016, at the University of Nevada in Las Vegas (UNLV).

See the event flier here.

See the agenda/program here.

The Forum is sponsored by the UNLV Academic Multicultural Resource Center and UNLV Boyd School of Law.

Learn more about NCAC at its website.

Pro-nuke Bipartisan Policy Center advocates for Mobile Chernobyls and high-level radioactive waste parking lot dumps

The revolving door between so-called "public servants" and nuclear power lobbying firms is spinning so fast, it could be connected to the electric grid and awarded billion dollar subsidies at ratepayer and taxpayers expense! Close on the heels of the U.S. Department of Energy's own "Consent-Based Siting" proceeding, the pro-nuclear Bipartisan Policy Center has published a lobbying plan, deaf to public concerns, that it hopes will lead to legislation next year, to expedite high-level radioactive waste transportation to so-called centralized interim storage sites, such as Waste Control Specialists, LLC in west Texas. Help push back, by using Beyond Nuclear's "We Do NOT Consent!" talking points to write your own, for submission to consentbasedsiting@hq.doe.gov by the Oct. 30th deadline. You can also contact your two U.S. Senators and your U.S. Representative (including via the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121), as well as the White House, urging that: high-level radioactive waste stop being made; Hardened On-Site Storage (HOSS) be required for what already exists; calls for Mobile Chernobyls and de facto permanent parking lot dumps be rejected. More 

Commemorating the Fermi 1 meltdown, 50 years later

Next Wednesday, Beyond Nuclear is joining with grassroots environmental allies in southeast Michigan to mark the 50th anniversary of the Oct. 5, 1966 partial meltdown of the infamous Fermi Unit 1 plutonium breeder reactor located on the shore of Lake Erie. In the form of our "Freeze Our Fukushimas" and "Got KI?" campaigns, the lessons that should have been learned from this close call with catastrophe, that endangered the Great Lakes, and countless numbers of people downwind and downstream, will be applied to resisting ongoing operations at Fermi 2 (a Fukushima Daiichi twin design), as well as seeking to block the proposed new Fermi 3 reactor.  More

Save & Close

Nuclear Power: Game Over -- new analysis

Professor Derek Abbott, a physicist and electrical engineer at the University of Adelaide, Australia, shows why the pipe dreams of the pro-nuclear propagandists are precisely that. Using a wealth of empirical data illustrating global trends, he also ably debunks the pro-nuclear arguments. Read the full article, written in accessible, lay language. 

Among the points Prof. Abbott makes: 

On China: "Nuclear apologists point to China as a role model that is actively building a number of NPPs. The fact is that China has built $160 billion in overcapacity of coal plants that are unused. Will their NPPs, which are presently under construction, become similarly redundant? . . . By contrast, in 2015, China invested five times more in renewables than nuclear power. Those nuclear projects will take many years to complete, whereas renewables are deployed and put to immediate use."

Getting uranium from seawater "is a fruitless suggestion as the uranium concentration is tiny, at 3.3 parts per billion. The energy it takes to lift a bucket of sea water 50 metres is equal to the energy you'd get from the uranium."

Nuclear vs. renewables: "Nuclear power is large and centralised, with enormous entry and exit costs. By contrast, renewables are made up of small modular units that yield a faster return on investment. The revolution we are witnessing is akin to the extinction of big powerful dinosaurs versus resilient swarms of small ants working in cooperation." 

Nuclear can't solve renewable intermittency: "Generators designed for constant baseload operation are exactly what uncontrollable renewable generators don't need. Uncontrollable renewables need flexible controlled sources of power such as hydroelectric power, pumped hydro, waste biofuels, solar thermal, and solar generated hydrogen or syngas to provide power when generation from intermittent renewable sources is insufficient to meet demand. Nuclear power plants work best when they provide constant power output and they lack the agility to follow the variability of renewable generators."

Nuclear is not needed to solve grid instability: "First, nuclear power is not needed because controllable renewable sources. . . already stabilise the grid. It is true that other renewable sources do give rise to grid management issues, but this is bread and butter for grid engineers. There are numerous research papers by grid engineers developing solutions for increased renewable penetration and none are suggesting the need for nuclear power."