STOP NUCLEAIRE ! French
http://goo.gl/ED6nxh 25634
International
http://goo.gl/o2qQ23
Réseau "Sortir du nucléaire"
http://goo.gl/OVzqzp 26116
Fukushima informations Closed Group
http://goo.gl/zdgZ7w 5178
http://goo.gl/zBwNbq 1013 Page
Putain, Homer il n'a pas géré pour la centrale nucléaire de Fukushima x)
http://goo.gl/UKlfEm 2081
J'arrête Le Nucléaire
http://goo.gl/x9tTQL 1405
Le côté obscur du nucléaire français
http://goo.gl/dXb1vK 627
Boycott France for nuclear export-Areva and EDF; cars, wine, travel etc
http://goo.gl/pJzYX5 47
Showing posts with label Nuclear Energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nuclear Energy. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Monday, November 11, 2013
Nuclear Energy Supporting Viewpoints
Nuclear Energy Supporting Viewpoints
What's Holding Back Nuclear Energy
A look at the challenges that keep it from taking off—and how to meet them
11/11/2013
http://goo.gl/cRWh3S
The Case For Combating Climate Change With Nuclear Power and Fracking
10/07/2013
Joe Lassiter
http://goo.gl/l1miZM
Response To Readers: Combating Climate Change With Nuclear Power And Fracking
10/16/2013
Joe Lassiter
http://goo.gl/8FZjnc
Fukushima and the Misunderstood Effects of Radiation
September 23, 2013
JERRY M. CUTTLER, D.SC.
http://q.gs/4tim8
Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power
Japan's disaster would weigh more heavily if there were less harmful alternatives. Atomic power is part of the mix
George Monbiot
Monday 21 March 2011
http://goo.gl/EFVEam
Why the U.S. can't abandon the nuclear renaissance
March 17, 2011
http://goo.gl/n9efdG
Fukushima is not Chernobyl, wind power causes more deaths
by Maurizio d'Orlando
03/18/2011
http://goo.gl/l13ezn
The unpalatable truth is that the anti-nuclear lobby has misled us all
I've discovered that when the facts don't suit them, the movement resorts to the follies of cover-up they usually denounce
George Monbiot
The Guardian 5 April 2011
http://goo.gl/yx89LZ
http://q.gs/4tiqG
Nuclear energy: the low carbon source to drive advanced industrial processes?
Two British greens give their backing to nuclear power
George Monbiot and Mark Lynas
By Making It on 20 April, 2011
http://goo.gl/zcf6nt
Patrick Moore: From Greenpeace Dove To Nuclear Power Phoenix (NLR, URRE, DNN, CCJ, URZ, UEC)
September 29th, 2011
http://q.gs/4tRQF
Why nuclear matters for China
Mi Sen
October 13, 2011
http://goo.gl/gF3Yl7
debate tools
What information can I use to counter arguments made by people who are opposed to Nuclear Power?
http://q.gs/4tiP9
Nuclear power? Yes please!: A former opponent calls on Chris Huhne to embrace the energy source that's cheap AND good for the environment
By FRED PEARCE
27th November 2011
http://goo.gl/thILFw
What's Holding Back Nuclear Energy
A look at the challenges that keep it from taking off—and how to meet them
11/11/2013
http://goo.gl/cRWh3S
The Case For Combating Climate Change With Nuclear Power and Fracking
10/07/2013
Joe Lassiter
http://goo.gl/l1miZM
Response To Readers: Combating Climate Change With Nuclear Power And Fracking
10/16/2013
Joe Lassiter
http://goo.gl/8FZjnc
Fukushima and the Misunderstood Effects of Radiation
September 23, 2013
JERRY M. CUTTLER, D.SC.
http://q.gs/4tim8
Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power
Japan's disaster would weigh more heavily if there were less harmful alternatives. Atomic power is part of the mix
George Monbiot
Monday 21 March 2011
http://goo.gl/EFVEam
Why the U.S. can't abandon the nuclear renaissance
March 17, 2011
http://goo.gl/n9efdG
Fukushima is not Chernobyl, wind power causes more deaths
by Maurizio d'Orlando
03/18/2011
http://goo.gl/l13ezn
The unpalatable truth is that the anti-nuclear lobby has misled us all
I've discovered that when the facts don't suit them, the movement resorts to the follies of cover-up they usually denounce
George Monbiot
The Guardian 5 April 2011
http://goo.gl/yx89LZ
http://q.gs/4tiqG
Nuclear energy: the low carbon source to drive advanced industrial processes?
Two British greens give their backing to nuclear power
George Monbiot and Mark Lynas
By Making It on 20 April, 2011
http://goo.gl/zcf6nt
Patrick Moore: From Greenpeace Dove To Nuclear Power Phoenix (NLR, URRE, DNN, CCJ, URZ, UEC)
September 29th, 2011
http://q.gs/4tRQF
Why nuclear matters for China
Mi Sen
October 13, 2011
http://goo.gl/gF3Yl7
debate tools
What information can I use to counter arguments made by people who are opposed to Nuclear Power?
http://q.gs/4tiP9
Nuclear power? Yes please!: A former opponent calls on Chris Huhne to embrace the energy source that's cheap AND good for the environment
By FRED PEARCE
27th November 2011
http://goo.gl/thILFw
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Nuclear Power Nuclear Energy Articles
Nuclear Power Nuclear Energy Articles
Reasons Against or Oppose Nuclear Power Plants
http://nuke6.blogspot.com/2012/09/reasons-against-or-oppose-nuclear-power.html
11 Facts About The Ongoing Fukushima Nuclear Holocaust That Are Almost Too Horrifying To Believe
8/20/2013
http://goo.gl/blnCGK
Were you outraged??
4/23/2012
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree/posts/424779630874588
The Nuclear Industry and Fukushima: A Giant Nail in the Coffin of Humanity
5/12/2012
http://q.gs/1iGdU
Fukushima anniversary reminds us there are better options than nuclear
3/12/2012
http://goo.gl/T8ljww
Climate Spectator: What's really wrong with nuclear?
2/27/2012
http://nuke6.blogspot.com/2012/02/climate-spectator-whats-really-wrong.html
Reprocessing: Mythology versus Reality
2/2012
http://q.gs/1iGeu
Electricity Cost Comparisons Different Power Sources
http://nuke6.blogspot.com/2011/10/electricity-cost-comparisons-different.html
Nuclear Energy: Good or Bad?
1/05/2009
http://q.gs/1iGgX
Nuclear Power, a Viable Option for Clean Energy (+ all comments)
3/02/2009
http://q.gs/1iGli
Worst Alternative Energy Sources Receive Most Attention
http://www.naturalnews.com/025592_power_carbon_fuel.html
Activists tell EU Parliament 'there is no solution for nuclear waste'
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/multimedia/photos/Activists-tell-EU-Parliament-there-is-no-solution-for-nuclear-waste/
Kids Living Near Nuclear Power Plants Have Much Higher Rates of Cancer
http://www.naturalnews.com/023678.html
33% Renewable Energy is Goal for California
http://www.care2.com/greenliving/33-renewable-energy-is-goal-for-california-2.html
Entire Texas Town Could be Solar Powered
http://www.care2.com/greenliving/entire-texas-town-could-be-solar-powered.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons
http://www.naturalnews.com/023274_military_depleted_uranium_US.html
Poisoning Our Own Troops with Depleted Uranium
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/09/17/uranium.aspx
Hospitals Become Major Source of Nuclear Waste
http://www.naturalnews.com/025711.html
Greenpeace urges the Chief Executive to “take the right route” against the climate crisis
September 22, 2010
http://www.greenpeace.org/china/en/press/release/carfreeday-donald02
Greenpeace condemns Hong Kong’s nuclear expansion the wrong track
September 10, 2010
http://www.greenpeace.org/china/en/press/release/low-carbon-high-nuclear
Nuclear Power Myths Nuclear Energy Pros and Cons Advantages Good or Bad Anti Nuclear
http://easss.com/nuclear/myths
22 years after Chernobyl, the nuclear industry remains mired in accidents, cover-ups and incompetence
Press release
April 24, 2008
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/22-years-after-chernobyl/
Nuclear Debate: A Dangerous Distraction
12/18/2009
We can't bet on nuclear energy to replace fossil fuels, says Jan Beránek, leader of Greenpeace’s nuclear energy campaign. It is too dirty, dangerous, and costly, and is a distraction from real climate solutions.
http://knowledge.allianz.com/en/globalissues/energy_co2/fossil_fuels/nuclear_energy_debate_climate_solution_anti/article724.html
Nuclear News: Radiation Expert Worried Over Renaissance in Nuclear Power
April 29, 2010
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/nuclear-news-radiation-expert-worried-over-re/blog/11670
What Nuclear Renaissance?
By Christian Parenti
Source: The NationThursday, May 01, 2008
http://www.zcommunications.org/what-nuclear-renaissance-by-christian-parenti
What To Do With Zombie Nuke Plants
Christian Parenti: Thirty Years Affter The Three Mile Island Partial Meltdown, Old Plants Pose The Real Nuclear Power Threat
November 24, 2009
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/24/opinion/main5760218.shtml
The main cause of global warming
http://timeforchange.org/main-cause-of-global-warming-solutions
Is nuclear power a global warming solution?
Are there any ways to prevent global warming?
http://timeforchange.org/pros-cons-nuclear-power-global-warming-solution
CO2 emission of electricity from nuclear power stations
How much CO2 is produced by atomic energy?
http://timeforchange.org/co2-emission-nuclear-power-stations-electricity
Pros and cons of nuclear power
http://timeforchange.org/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-power-and-sustainability
About the cost advantage of nuclear energy
http://timeforchange.org/cost-advantage-of-nuclear-energy-pros-cons
New Finish nuclear power plant Olkiluoto with enormous financial losses
http://timeforchange.org/new-finish-nuclear-power-plant-olkiluoto-enormous-financial-losses
Nuclear power phase-out pros and cons
http://timeforchange.org/nuclear-power-phase-out-pros-and-cons
Solar, not nuclear energy
http://timeforchange.org/solar-not-nuclear-energy
New Book Shows U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Can be Completely Eliminated by 2050
A Roadmap for U.S. Global Climate Change Leadership after Bali Conference
Nuclear Power Is Not Needed for an Economical and Reliable Energy System without Fossil Fuels
Dec. 20, 2007
http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/pressrelease2.html
Carbon-Free And Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy [Paperback]
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/157143173X/govindasbookstor
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
Where Science and Democracy Meet
http://www.ieer.org/
Trapping Carbon Dioxide Or Switching To Nuclear Power Not Enough To Solve Global Warming Problem, Experts Say
ScienceDaily (July 13, 2009)
The researchers also point out a flaw in the nuclear energy argument. Although nuclear power does not produce carbon dioxide emissions in the same way as burning fossil fuels it does produce heat emissions equivalent to three times the energy of the electricity it generates and so contributes to global warming significantly, Nordell adds.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090713085248.htm
What is the carbon footprint of nuclear energy?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_carbon_footprint_of_nuclear_energy
New Nuclear - the Economics Say No
14 November 2009
https://www.citigroupgeo.com/pdf/SEU27102.pdf
http://nuclear-news.net/2009/11/14/citigroup-reports-on-nuclear-economics-thecorporate-killer/
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50308
Zero Carbon Australia 2020 Stationary Energy Plan
Cutting-edge research, which shows how Australia can reach 100% renewable energy within a decade, using technology that is commercially available right now.
http://beyondzeroemissions.org/zero-carbon-australia-2020
http://beyondzeroemissions.org/
The question: should nuclear energy power our future?
November 29, 2010
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-question-should-nuclear-energy-power-our-future-20101129-18cro.html
Nuclear's CO2 cost 'will climb'
By Paul Rincon
Science reporter, BBC News
30 April 2008
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7371645.stm
5 Environmental Crises To Care About
http://www.care2.com/greenliving/5-environmental-crises-to-pay-attention-to.html
Eco-problems (of Many) Al Gore May Never Make a Movie About (But Should)
1. Nuclear Waste
http://www.care2.com/greenliving/5-environmental-crises-to-pay-attention-to.html?page=2
Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power
http://www.greenamerica.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear.cfm
Nuclear Power Expansion in China Stirs Concerns
By KEITH BRADSHER
December 15, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/business/global/16chinanuke.html?_r=2
Nuclear Power
Since the early 1990s, NC WARN has watch-dogged the state’s nuclear power industry over its “low-level” and high-level waste practices, along with reactor safety and security issues.
http://www.ncwarn.org/?cat=18
Want Sustainable Energy? Tell Your Power Company
http://www.care2.com/greenliving/alternative-energy-just-ask.html
Debate: Does the world need nuclear energy?
TALKS Video
http://www.ted.com/talks/debate_does_the_world_need_nuclear_energy.html
Nuclear power: the energy crisis has even die-hard environmentalists reconsidering it. In this first-ever TED debate, Stewart Brand and Mark Z. Jacobson square off over the pros and cons. A discussion that'll make you think -- and might even change your mind.
About Stewart Brand
Since the counterculture Sixties, Stewart Brand has been a critical thinker and innovator who helped lay the foundations of our internetworked world.
About Mark Z. Jacobson
At Stanford, Mark Z. Jacobson uses numerical models to study the effects of energy systems and vehicles on climate and air pollution, and to analyze renewable energy resources.
Money Never Sleeps
Thorium – The New Green Fuel?
Monday, December 13, 2010
http://www.newstime.co.za/column/ChrisGilmour/Thorium_%E2%80%93_The_New_Green_Fuel/99/2755/
Flirting With Disaster
Every few years the defenses of the nation’s nuclear plants are tested. What’s scary is how often they fail.
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/06/failing-the-nuclear-security-test.html
Wind, water and sun beat biofuels, nuclear and coal for clean energy, researcher says
http://www.physorg.com/news148149704.html
Wind, water and sun beat other energy alternatives, study finds
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/january7/power-010709.html
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security
Mark Z. Jacobson
http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2009/EE/b809990c
Full PDF Download
http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/pdf/article/2009/ee/b809990c
TED Debate on Renewable Versus Nuclear Power
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/renew_vs_nuclear.html
Mark Z. Jacobson
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Z._Jacobson
Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy [Paperback]
Arjun Makhijani (Author)
http://amzn.to/hiKr83
download PDF
http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/CarbonFreeNuclearFree.pdf
Nuclear energy isn't needed
Greenpeace Executive Director Kumi Naidoo wrote the following opinion piece for the New York Times/International Herald Tribune
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/Nuclear-energy-isnt-needed/
--------
Additional Note from Greenpeace China about Say No to Nuclear
First, nuclear is low carbon, but not clean.
Uranium mining is a highly polluting industry which provide fuel rods to nuclear power plant. The fuel rod we use in Daya Bay is supplied by AREVA, a french company reach creates radioactive contamination in Niger.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/areva-fails-to-address-radiati/
There is no solution for the waste. Leakage of the waste is found even in a Germany underground storage because of the groundwater.
The pollution of plutonium in spent fuel will last for 240,000 years. Further more, putting the waste 'out of sight, out of mind' doesnt mean it is clean.
Second, even the latest third generation reactor is not safe. The industry failed to rule out the possibility of heavy accident like Chernobyl.
During the construction of the only 2 third generation reactors in the world, over 3,000 defects are found. It fully reflected the unreliability of nuclear technology.
Another evidence for the safety concern is that not a single nuclear plant is willing to take full liability of possible heavy accident.
If they are really so confident that the latest nuclear plant is completely safe, they dont have to put a cap on their liability on heavy accident.
Nowaday, the limited liability is still a common practise in the industry.
Lastly, Hong Kong is a developed city without a huge population growth, but with very high income. In other words, it is our job to improve our energy efficiency.
We suggest to improve our energy efficiency by 25% while government only target at less than 15% improvement by 2020.
Obviously, they are considering import more nuclear energy rather than controlling our energy consumption in a larger extent.
Greenpeace is going to lanuch our energy scenairo without increase nuclear power in the coming weeks. Please keep an eye on our website and facebook!
Thank you very much.
Best Regards,
Prentice Koo
Campaigner, Greenpeace China
http://www.greenpeace.org/china/ch/
-----------------
Nothing new for nuclear
Problems at the Fukushima reactors are the latest in a long pattern of accidents worldwide
https://www.praguepost.com/opinion/7965-nothing-new-for-nuclear.html
Nuclear Power Lies : Stop Acting Like Nuclear Power Is A Good Idea
By Jeff Siegel
Tuesday, April 12th, 2011
http://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/nuclear-power-lies/1293
Why is the United States so obsessed with nuclear power?
BY ARNE JUNGJOHANN
31 MAY 2011
http://www.grist.org/nuclear/2011-05-31-why-is-the-united-states-so-obsessed-with-nuclear-power
The nuclear industry has powerful backers and weak opponents in D.C. 37
BY ARNE JUNGJOHANN
1 JUN 2011
http://www.grist.org/nuclear/2011-06-01-nuclear-industry-has-powerful-backers-weak-opponents
States fight back against nuclear power, even as the feds remain in its thrall 12
BY ARNE JUNGJOHANN
2 JUN 2011
http://www.grist.org/nuclear/2011-06-02-states-fight-back-against-nuclear-power-even-as-the-feds-remain
Is pro-nuke enthusiasm in the U.S. waning?
BY ARNE JUNGJOHANN
3 JUN 2011
http://www.grist.org/nuclear/2011-06-03-is-pro-nuke-enthusiasm-in-the-us-waning
The True Battle of Chernobyl Uncensored (Full)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdMLFJJyWnM
Nuclear Power Explained : Climate of Hope : Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_NLdRUELjo
Nuclear Power Explained : Climate of Hope : Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeCCBvz_XwA
Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences) [Paperback]
Alexey V. Yablokov (Editor), Vassily B. Nesterenko (Editor), Alexey V. Nesterenko (Editor), Janette D. Sherman-Nevinger (Editor)
http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf
Uranium – The Film
“Uranium – Is It A Country? Tracking the Origins of Nuclear Energy” (2009, 53 Min.)
The documentary heads to Australia and reveals a side of nuclear power that’s rarely seen: uranium – where it comes from, where it goes, and what is left over from the mining process.
http://strahlendesklima.de/en/uranium/
Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free
A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy
http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/15-1.pdf
Chernobyl Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment
Download Book PDF file
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9ZRX3oXKh8
http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf
Answers to some FAQs about Koodankulam and Nuclear Power http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree/posts/168838463212344
Impacts of the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plants on Marine Radioactivity
Ken Buesseler, Michio Aoyama, and Masao Fukasawa
10/2011
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es202816c
Nuclear power debate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_debate
Reasons Against or Oppose Nuclear Power Plants
http://nuke6.blogspot.com/2012/09/reasons-against-or-oppose-nuclear-power.html
11 Facts About The Ongoing Fukushima Nuclear Holocaust That Are Almost Too Horrifying To Believe
8/20/2013
http://goo.gl/blnCGK
Were you outraged??
4/23/2012
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree/posts/424779630874588
The Nuclear Industry and Fukushima: A Giant Nail in the Coffin of Humanity
5/12/2012
http://q.gs/1iGdU
Fukushima anniversary reminds us there are better options than nuclear
3/12/2012
http://goo.gl/T8ljww
Climate Spectator: What's really wrong with nuclear?
2/27/2012
http://nuke6.blogspot.com/2012/02/climate-spectator-whats-really-wrong.html
Reprocessing: Mythology versus Reality
2/2012
http://q.gs/1iGeu
Electricity Cost Comparisons Different Power Sources
http://nuke6.blogspot.com/2011/10/electricity-cost-comparisons-different.html
Nuclear Energy: Good or Bad?
1/05/2009
http://q.gs/1iGgX
Nuclear Power, a Viable Option for Clean Energy (+ all comments)
3/02/2009
http://q.gs/1iGli
Worst Alternative Energy Sources Receive Most Attention
http://www.naturalnews.com/025592_power_carbon_fuel.html
Activists tell EU Parliament 'there is no solution for nuclear waste'
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/multimedia/photos/Activists-tell-EU-Parliament-there-is-no-solution-for-nuclear-waste/
Kids Living Near Nuclear Power Plants Have Much Higher Rates of Cancer
http://www.naturalnews.com/023678.html
33% Renewable Energy is Goal for California
http://www.care2.com/greenliving/33-renewable-energy-is-goal-for-california-2.html
Entire Texas Town Could be Solar Powered
http://www.care2.com/greenliving/entire-texas-town-could-be-solar-powered.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons
http://www.naturalnews.com/023274_military_depleted_uranium_US.html
Poisoning Our Own Troops with Depleted Uranium
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/09/17/uranium.aspx
Hospitals Become Major Source of Nuclear Waste
http://www.naturalnews.com/025711.html
Greenpeace urges the Chief Executive to “take the right route” against the climate crisis
September 22, 2010
http://www.greenpeace.org/china/en/press/release/carfreeday-donald02
Greenpeace condemns Hong Kong’s nuclear expansion the wrong track
September 10, 2010
http://www.greenpeace.org/china/en/press/release/low-carbon-high-nuclear
Nuclear Power Myths Nuclear Energy Pros and Cons Advantages Good or Bad Anti Nuclear
http://easss.com/nuclear/myths
22 years after Chernobyl, the nuclear industry remains mired in accidents, cover-ups and incompetence
Press release
April 24, 2008
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/22-years-after-chernobyl/
Nuclear Debate: A Dangerous Distraction
12/18/2009
We can't bet on nuclear energy to replace fossil fuels, says Jan Beránek, leader of Greenpeace’s nuclear energy campaign. It is too dirty, dangerous, and costly, and is a distraction from real climate solutions.
http://knowledge.allianz.com/en/globalissues/energy_co2/fossil_fuels/nuclear_energy_debate_climate_solution_anti/article724.html
Nuclear News: Radiation Expert Worried Over Renaissance in Nuclear Power
April 29, 2010
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/nuclear-news-radiation-expert-worried-over-re/blog/11670
What Nuclear Renaissance?
By Christian Parenti
Source: The NationThursday, May 01, 2008
http://www.zcommunications.org/what-nuclear-renaissance-by-christian-parenti
What To Do With Zombie Nuke Plants
Christian Parenti: Thirty Years Affter The Three Mile Island Partial Meltdown, Old Plants Pose The Real Nuclear Power Threat
November 24, 2009
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/24/opinion/main5760218.shtml
The main cause of global warming
http://timeforchange.org/main-cause-of-global-warming-solutions
Is nuclear power a global warming solution?
Are there any ways to prevent global warming?
http://timeforchange.org/pros-cons-nuclear-power-global-warming-solution
CO2 emission of electricity from nuclear power stations
How much CO2 is produced by atomic energy?
http://timeforchange.org/co2-emission-nuclear-power-stations-electricity
Pros and cons of nuclear power
http://timeforchange.org/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-power-and-sustainability
About the cost advantage of nuclear energy
http://timeforchange.org/cost-advantage-of-nuclear-energy-pros-cons
New Finish nuclear power plant Olkiluoto with enormous financial losses
http://timeforchange.org/new-finish-nuclear-power-plant-olkiluoto-enormous-financial-losses
Nuclear power phase-out pros and cons
http://timeforchange.org/nuclear-power-phase-out-pros-and-cons
Solar, not nuclear energy
http://timeforchange.org/solar-not-nuclear-energy
New Book Shows U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Can be Completely Eliminated by 2050
A Roadmap for U.S. Global Climate Change Leadership after Bali Conference
Nuclear Power Is Not Needed for an Economical and Reliable Energy System without Fossil Fuels
Dec. 20, 2007
http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/pressrelease2.html
Carbon-Free And Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy [Paperback]
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/157143173X/govindasbookstor
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
Where Science and Democracy Meet
http://www.ieer.org/
Trapping Carbon Dioxide Or Switching To Nuclear Power Not Enough To Solve Global Warming Problem, Experts Say
ScienceDaily (July 13, 2009)
The researchers also point out a flaw in the nuclear energy argument. Although nuclear power does not produce carbon dioxide emissions in the same way as burning fossil fuels it does produce heat emissions equivalent to three times the energy of the electricity it generates and so contributes to global warming significantly, Nordell adds.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090713085248.htm
What is the carbon footprint of nuclear energy?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_carbon_footprint_of_nuclear_energy
New Nuclear - the Economics Say No
14 November 2009
https://www.citigroupgeo.com/pdf/SEU27102.pdf
http://nuclear-news.net/2009/11/14/citigroup-reports-on-nuclear-economics-thecorporate-killer/
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50308
Zero Carbon Australia 2020 Stationary Energy Plan
Cutting-edge research, which shows how Australia can reach 100% renewable energy within a decade, using technology that is commercially available right now.
http://beyondzeroemissions.org/zero-carbon-australia-2020
http://beyondzeroemissions.org/
The question: should nuclear energy power our future?
November 29, 2010
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-question-should-nuclear-energy-power-our-future-20101129-18cro.html
Nuclear's CO2 cost 'will climb'
By Paul Rincon
Science reporter, BBC News
30 April 2008
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7371645.stm
5 Environmental Crises To Care About
http://www.care2.com/greenliving/5-environmental-crises-to-pay-attention-to.html
Eco-problems (of Many) Al Gore May Never Make a Movie About (But Should)
1. Nuclear Waste
http://www.care2.com/greenliving/5-environmental-crises-to-pay-attention-to.html?page=2
Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power
http://www.greenamerica.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear.cfm
Nuclear Power Expansion in China Stirs Concerns
By KEITH BRADSHER
December 15, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/business/global/16chinanuke.html?_r=2
Nuclear Power
Since the early 1990s, NC WARN has watch-dogged the state’s nuclear power industry over its “low-level” and high-level waste practices, along with reactor safety and security issues.
http://www.ncwarn.org/?cat=18
Want Sustainable Energy? Tell Your Power Company
http://www.care2.com/greenliving/alternative-energy-just-ask.html
Debate: Does the world need nuclear energy?
TALKS Video
http://www.ted.com/talks/debate_does_the_world_need_nuclear_energy.html
Nuclear power: the energy crisis has even die-hard environmentalists reconsidering it. In this first-ever TED debate, Stewart Brand and Mark Z. Jacobson square off over the pros and cons. A discussion that'll make you think -- and might even change your mind.
About Stewart Brand
Since the counterculture Sixties, Stewart Brand has been a critical thinker and innovator who helped lay the foundations of our internetworked world.
About Mark Z. Jacobson
At Stanford, Mark Z. Jacobson uses numerical models to study the effects of energy systems and vehicles on climate and air pollution, and to analyze renewable energy resources.
Money Never Sleeps
Thorium – The New Green Fuel?
Monday, December 13, 2010
http://www.newstime.co.za/column/ChrisGilmour/Thorium_%E2%80%93_The_New_Green_Fuel/99/2755/
Flirting With Disaster
Every few years the defenses of the nation’s nuclear plants are tested. What’s scary is how often they fail.
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/06/failing-the-nuclear-security-test.html
Wind, water and sun beat biofuels, nuclear and coal for clean energy, researcher says
http://www.physorg.com/news148149704.html
Wind, water and sun beat other energy alternatives, study finds
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/january7/power-010709.html
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security
Mark Z. Jacobson
http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2009/EE/b809990c
Full PDF Download
http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/pdf/article/2009/ee/b809990c
TED Debate on Renewable Versus Nuclear Power
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/renew_vs_nuclear.html
Mark Z. Jacobson
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Z._Jacobson
Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy [Paperback]
Arjun Makhijani (Author)
http://amzn.to/hiKr83
download PDF
http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/CarbonFreeNuclearFree.pdf
Nuclear energy isn't needed
Greenpeace Executive Director Kumi Naidoo wrote the following opinion piece for the New York Times/International Herald Tribune
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/Nuclear-energy-isnt-needed/
--------
Additional Note from Greenpeace China about Say No to Nuclear
First, nuclear is low carbon, but not clean.
Uranium mining is a highly polluting industry which provide fuel rods to nuclear power plant. The fuel rod we use in Daya Bay is supplied by AREVA, a french company reach creates radioactive contamination in Niger.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/areva-fails-to-address-radiati/
There is no solution for the waste. Leakage of the waste is found even in a Germany underground storage because of the groundwater.
The pollution of plutonium in spent fuel will last for 240,000 years. Further more, putting the waste 'out of sight, out of mind' doesnt mean it is clean.
Second, even the latest third generation reactor is not safe. The industry failed to rule out the possibility of heavy accident like Chernobyl.
During the construction of the only 2 third generation reactors in the world, over 3,000 defects are found. It fully reflected the unreliability of nuclear technology.
Another evidence for the safety concern is that not a single nuclear plant is willing to take full liability of possible heavy accident.
If they are really so confident that the latest nuclear plant is completely safe, they dont have to put a cap on their liability on heavy accident.
Nowaday, the limited liability is still a common practise in the industry.
Lastly, Hong Kong is a developed city without a huge population growth, but with very high income. In other words, it is our job to improve our energy efficiency.
We suggest to improve our energy efficiency by 25% while government only target at less than 15% improvement by 2020.
Obviously, they are considering import more nuclear energy rather than controlling our energy consumption in a larger extent.
Greenpeace is going to lanuch our energy scenairo without increase nuclear power in the coming weeks. Please keep an eye on our website and facebook!
Thank you very much.
Best Regards,
Prentice Koo
Campaigner, Greenpeace China
http://www.greenpeace.org/china/ch/
-----------------
Nothing new for nuclear
Problems at the Fukushima reactors are the latest in a long pattern of accidents worldwide
https://www.praguepost.com/opinion/7965-nothing-new-for-nuclear.html
Nuclear Power Lies : Stop Acting Like Nuclear Power Is A Good Idea
By Jeff Siegel
Tuesday, April 12th, 2011
http://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/nuclear-power-lies/1293
Why is the United States so obsessed with nuclear power?
BY ARNE JUNGJOHANN
31 MAY 2011
http://www.grist.org/nuclear/2011-05-31-why-is-the-united-states-so-obsessed-with-nuclear-power
The nuclear industry has powerful backers and weak opponents in D.C. 37
BY ARNE JUNGJOHANN
1 JUN 2011
http://www.grist.org/nuclear/2011-06-01-nuclear-industry-has-powerful-backers-weak-opponents
States fight back against nuclear power, even as the feds remain in its thrall 12
BY ARNE JUNGJOHANN
2 JUN 2011
http://www.grist.org/nuclear/2011-06-02-states-fight-back-against-nuclear-power-even-as-the-feds-remain
Is pro-nuke enthusiasm in the U.S. waning?
BY ARNE JUNGJOHANN
3 JUN 2011
http://www.grist.org/nuclear/2011-06-03-is-pro-nuke-enthusiasm-in-the-us-waning
The True Battle of Chernobyl Uncensored (Full)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdMLFJJyWnM
Nuclear Power Explained : Climate of Hope : Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_NLdRUELjo
Nuclear Power Explained : Climate of Hope : Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeCCBvz_XwA
Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences) [Paperback]
Alexey V. Yablokov (Editor), Vassily B. Nesterenko (Editor), Alexey V. Nesterenko (Editor), Janette D. Sherman-Nevinger (Editor)
http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf
Uranium – The Film
“Uranium – Is It A Country? Tracking the Origins of Nuclear Energy” (2009, 53 Min.)
The documentary heads to Australia and reveals a side of nuclear power that’s rarely seen: uranium – where it comes from, where it goes, and what is left over from the mining process.
http://strahlendesklima.de/en/uranium/
Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free
A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy
http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/15-1.pdf
Chernobyl Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment
Download Book PDF file
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9ZRX3oXKh8
http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf
Answers to some FAQs about Koodankulam and Nuclear Power http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree/posts/168838463212344
Impacts of the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plants on Marine Radioactivity
Ken Buesseler, Michio Aoyama, and Masao Fukasawa
10/2011
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es202816c
Nuclear power debate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_debate
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Pro-Nuke Bill Gates On Nuclear Energy Power Plants
Bill Gates and China Developing Nuclear Reactor
Dec 7, 2011
Welcome to CRWE Newswire News Update, I'm Christina Collins --- Bill Gates, Microsoft Corp. co-founder says he is in discussions with China to jointly develop a new kind of nuclear reactor --- Wednesday, Gates said during a talk at China's Ministry of Science & Technology that the idea is to be very low cost, very safe and generate very little waste --- Gates backs Washington-based TerraPower, which is developing a nuclear reactor that can run on depleted uranium --- He says TerraPower is having good discussions with state-owned China National Nuclear Corporation --- Gates says possibly as much as a billion dollars will be put into research and development over the next five years --- Thank you for joining me for and stay with us for all your latest in News for CRWENewswire NewsUpdate, I'm Christina Collins
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
Bill Gates on Energy Innovation
11/23/2011
Bill Gates on the Potential of New Nuclear Technology
May 12, 2011
Bill Gates reflects on the future of nuclear power in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster in Japan. "Software simulation changes the game," argues Gates, highlighting the advantage of being able to virtually test new designs before building them. ----- Energy Innovation: A Tour of the Most Promising Technologies to Replace Oil and Coal Bill Gates, Co-Chair & Trustee, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; Chairman, Microsoft Corporation in conversation with Chris Anderson Bill Gates III is chairman of Microsoft Corporation, the worldwide leader in software, services and solutions that help people and businesses realize their full potential. In July 2008, Gates transitioned out of a day-to-day role in the company to spend more time on his global health and education work at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Gates continues to serve as Microsoft's chairman and an advisor on key development projects.
Bill Gates: "I love nuclear."
From a speech delivered at MIT, Bill Gates discusses his support for nuclear energy. Recorded April 21, 2010 | Kresge Auditorium | Cambridge, MA.
Bill Gates on energy: Innovating to zero!
Feb 20, 2010
At TED2010, Bill Gates unveils his vision for the world's energy future, describing the need for "miracles" to avoid planetary catastrophe and explaining why he's backing a dramatically different type of nuclear reactor. The necessary goal? Zero carbon emissions globally by 2050.
Bill Gates on energy: Innovating to zero! (Video)
5/3/2011
http://q.gs/2YFmI
Dec 7, 2011
Welcome to CRWE Newswire News Update, I'm Christina Collins --- Bill Gates, Microsoft Corp. co-founder says he is in discussions with China to jointly develop a new kind of nuclear reactor --- Wednesday, Gates said during a talk at China's Ministry of Science & Technology that the idea is to be very low cost, very safe and generate very little waste --- Gates backs Washington-based TerraPower, which is developing a nuclear reactor that can run on depleted uranium --- He says TerraPower is having good discussions with state-owned China National Nuclear Corporation --- Gates says possibly as much as a billion dollars will be put into research and development over the next five years --- Thank you for joining me for and stay with us for all your latest in News for CRWENewswire NewsUpdate, I'm Christina Collins
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
Bill Gates on Energy Innovation
11/23/2011
Bill Gates on the Potential of New Nuclear Technology
May 12, 2011
Bill Gates reflects on the future of nuclear power in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster in Japan. "Software simulation changes the game," argues Gates, highlighting the advantage of being able to virtually test new designs before building them. ----- Energy Innovation: A Tour of the Most Promising Technologies to Replace Oil and Coal Bill Gates, Co-Chair & Trustee, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; Chairman, Microsoft Corporation in conversation with Chris Anderson Bill Gates III is chairman of Microsoft Corporation, the worldwide leader in software, services and solutions that help people and businesses realize their full potential. In July 2008, Gates transitioned out of a day-to-day role in the company to spend more time on his global health and education work at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Gates continues to serve as Microsoft's chairman and an advisor on key development projects.
Bill Gates: "I love nuclear."
From a speech delivered at MIT, Bill Gates discusses his support for nuclear energy. Recorded April 21, 2010 | Kresge Auditorium | Cambridge, MA.
Bill Gates on energy: Innovating to zero!
Feb 20, 2010
At TED2010, Bill Gates unveils his vision for the world's energy future, describing the need for "miracles" to avoid planetary catastrophe and explaining why he's backing a dramatically different type of nuclear reactor. The necessary goal? Zero carbon emissions globally by 2050.
Bill Gates on energy: Innovating to zero! (Video)
5/3/2011
http://q.gs/2YFmI
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Nuclear energy key to China's development
Nuclear energy key to China's development
Hooman Peimani applauds the decision to continue building reactors
Tuesday, 06 November, 2012, 12:00am
Hooman Peimani
SCMP
Fossil fuels still dominate Beijing's energy mix.
The State Council has partially lifted a ban on new nuclear power stations in China - imposed following the Fukushima nuclear incident - allowing construction to go ahead in coastal areas. Under the new terms, no inland projects will be allowed to be built in the next three years of the current five-year plan.
The ban was part of a series of measures undertaken by the Chinese government to ensure the safety of its nuclear power sector at a time when exaggerated reporting about the Fukushima accident and a prevailing lack of knowledge about nuclear energy made many people - both in the East and West - question the wisdom of nuclear energy, which in their minds had become synonymous with accidents and disasters.
http://digcan.com/nuclear
The measures included testing the safety of China's 15 operating reactors to determine whether they should be kept operational. The subsequent issuance of a clean bill of health by the Chinese nuclear authorities allowed for their continued operation, while the ban on new development limited the scope of expansion.
China is already committed to building some 27 reactors that will become operational at different times over the next decade. Construction of these began as early as 2007, and includes one - in Shandong province - where work began in mid-2011, after the Fukushima incident. That signalled China's nuclear-energy commitment, while indicating the temporary nature of the ban.
However, the ban on new inland projects will for now limit China's expansion plans, which were designed to meet its growing demand for electricity while increasing the share of non-fossil fuels in its energy mix, which is dominated by coal.
Oil, gas and coal emit carbon dioxide and account for the bulk of greenhouse gases (about 75 per cent), the main cause of global warming. Decreasing their share in the global energy mix - and increasing greener energy use - is necessary to mitigate global warming.
In an effort to do so, and also reduce its heavy dependence on imported oil, gas and coal - and the associated financial and security risks - Beijing has embarked on an impressive plan to increase the share of renewable energy, such as wind and solar (about 7 per cent in 2011) and nuclear energy (almost 0.8 per cent last year), in its energy mix. Nevertheless, fossil fuels still dominate.
Nuclear energy is currently the only non-carbon-dioxide-emitting type of energy capable of large-scale electricity generation, given the technological limits of renewables. Thus, a continued expansion of nuclear energy is crucial for China.
Against this background, the importance of the State Council decision can be appreciated. While it may only allow for a "small number" of projects to go ahead, it has clearly set the stage for the eventual complete lifting of the ban of proposed projects that are safe, suitable and necessary for China.
To assure the public of its uncompromising approach to safety, the council also stressed that the new plants would be constructed according to "third-generation safety standards".
Undoubtedly, such high standards will be applied to all future reactors, regardless of whether they are on the coast or inland.
By putting back on track the envisaged expansion plan, the moves will help increase the speed and extent of growth of China's nuclear power sector, ensuring that the nation remains at the centre of regional - and world - nuclear power expansion.
Dr Hooman Peimani is head of the Energy Security Division and a principal fellow at the Energy Studies Institute, National University of Singapore
Hooman Peimani applauds the decision to continue building reactors
Tuesday, 06 November, 2012, 12:00am
Hooman Peimani
SCMP
Fossil fuels still dominate Beijing's energy mix.
The State Council has partially lifted a ban on new nuclear power stations in China - imposed following the Fukushima nuclear incident - allowing construction to go ahead in coastal areas. Under the new terms, no inland projects will be allowed to be built in the next three years of the current five-year plan.
The ban was part of a series of measures undertaken by the Chinese government to ensure the safety of its nuclear power sector at a time when exaggerated reporting about the Fukushima accident and a prevailing lack of knowledge about nuclear energy made many people - both in the East and West - question the wisdom of nuclear energy, which in their minds had become synonymous with accidents and disasters.
http://digcan.com/nuclear
The measures included testing the safety of China's 15 operating reactors to determine whether they should be kept operational. The subsequent issuance of a clean bill of health by the Chinese nuclear authorities allowed for their continued operation, while the ban on new development limited the scope of expansion.
China is already committed to building some 27 reactors that will become operational at different times over the next decade. Construction of these began as early as 2007, and includes one - in Shandong province - where work began in mid-2011, after the Fukushima incident. That signalled China's nuclear-energy commitment, while indicating the temporary nature of the ban.
However, the ban on new inland projects will for now limit China's expansion plans, which were designed to meet its growing demand for electricity while increasing the share of non-fossil fuels in its energy mix, which is dominated by coal.
Oil, gas and coal emit carbon dioxide and account for the bulk of greenhouse gases (about 75 per cent), the main cause of global warming. Decreasing their share in the global energy mix - and increasing greener energy use - is necessary to mitigate global warming.
In an effort to do so, and also reduce its heavy dependence on imported oil, gas and coal - and the associated financial and security risks - Beijing has embarked on an impressive plan to increase the share of renewable energy, such as wind and solar (about 7 per cent in 2011) and nuclear energy (almost 0.8 per cent last year), in its energy mix. Nevertheless, fossil fuels still dominate.
Nuclear energy is currently the only non-carbon-dioxide-emitting type of energy capable of large-scale electricity generation, given the technological limits of renewables. Thus, a continued expansion of nuclear energy is crucial for China.
Against this background, the importance of the State Council decision can be appreciated. While it may only allow for a "small number" of projects to go ahead, it has clearly set the stage for the eventual complete lifting of the ban of proposed projects that are safe, suitable and necessary for China.
To assure the public of its uncompromising approach to safety, the council also stressed that the new plants would be constructed according to "third-generation safety standards".
Undoubtedly, such high standards will be applied to all future reactors, regardless of whether they are on the coast or inland.
By putting back on track the envisaged expansion plan, the moves will help increase the speed and extent of growth of China's nuclear power sector, ensuring that the nation remains at the centre of regional - and world - nuclear power expansion.
Dr Hooman Peimani is head of the Energy Security Division and a principal fellow at the Energy Studies Institute, National University of Singapore
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Germany Support No Nuclear Energy Facebook Groups Pages
Atomkraft? Nein Danke! - Nuclear Power No Thanks
http://www.facebook.com/against.nuclear.power
330922
International
http://nuke6.blogspot.com/2011/10/support-no-nuclear-energy-nuclear-free.html
Gegen Atomkraft
http://www.facebook.com/GegenAtomkraft
114353
Atomkraft? Nein Danke!
http://www.facebook.com/atomkraftschlussjetzt
54191
2.000.000 gegen Atomstrom :-)
http://www.facebook.com/groups/151929461535765/
16015
Stoppt Atomkraftwerke
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stoppt-Atomkraftwerke/187527691288806
5189
Meltdown in Japan - Stop the nuclear madness
Kernschmelze in Japan - Stoppt den atomaren Wahnsinn
http://www.facebook.com/GAU2011
1143
Atomkraft? Braucht kein Mensch - German
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Atomkraft-Braucht-kein-Mensch/191683204204082
582
Hope for Fukushima - the german fukushima group with international members
http://www.facebook.com/groups/HopeforFukushima/
362
Jetzt AKTIV am Ball bleiben! Initiative für die Zukunft unseres Erdballs - German
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jetzt-AKTIV-am-Ball-bleiben-Initiative-f%C3%BCr-die-Zukunft-unseres-Erdballs/199134460117838
189
Thursday, May 17, 2012
16 Reasons Why India Must Shun Nuclear Energy
16 Reasons Why India Must Shun Nuclear Energy
Anuj Wankhede
5/16/2012
1) Nuclear Energy is the most powerful discovery made by humans – both for peace and war.? The sheer damage that nuclear power can cause is so huge that it will destroy the entire human race and life on earth.
2) Nuclear Energy is NOT a clean source of energy. From uranium mining, processing, cooling the reactors to the disposal of nuclear waste – all are highly polluting.
3) Radiation is a silent killer. The harm caused by a nuclear reactor even without an accident can be judged by the fact that there is an alarmingly high rate of cancer among those working in them. This information is available in the public domain and relates to studies done at Kalpakkam and Tarapur in India. Ironically, the studies are by the same government of India which claims nuclear Energy is safe!
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
Children say no to nuclear in Koodankulam
4) The world has seen how nuclear accidents occur out of both design flaws as well as natural disasters. The Three Mile accident in the United States was due to a design flaw in the emergency alarm system and what happened at Fukushima was a culmination of rank bad designing coupled with nature’s fury.
5) The desalination plants will suck in sea water, filter (kill) marine life and convert it into fresh water for cooling the huge reactors. What does not get filtered gets evaporated in steam used to distill the salty sea water. This causes severe marine biodiversity changes as can be seen in the Middle East.
These result in the formation of toxic algae laden “Red Tides” and the fish breeding in these areas are poisonous to humans and declared unfit for consumption. The Kudankulam project will certainly alter the biodiversity of the Bay of Bengal in general, and the Gulf of Mannar in particular. Marine experts agree and emphasize this profoundly rich and bio-diverse ecology needs the stewardship of preservation.
6) Japan, a heavily industrialized technologically advanced nation, shut down all its 54 nuclear reactors and is still getting along without the sort of crippling power cuts across India. More pertinently, the Japanese government agrees the any decision to restart the nuclear facilities should be ratified by the local people.
In India, the Kudankulam and Jaitapur nuclear power projects are coming up despite stiff and open public agitation. The government refuses transparency and does not share necessary information regarding safety and other concerns. The former reactor is being started almost in a military style secret operation. Bear in mind that the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) has asked the government to make this information available to the public!
7) While a 1000MW power project sounds impressive, nuclear reactors in India average at 40 to 50% utilization levels. Even after this, there are huge energy losses which are simply accounted as “Transmission & Distribution (T&D)” losses. It is nothing but an admission of failure to deliver efficiently whatever power is generated.
8 ) The power sector is facing a huge deficit on account of the losses mentioned above and also because of “under recovery” of dues. This is a euphemism for money written off for providing free power to large industrial units and big farmers – both well connected politically and providing money for election purposes.
9) State governments forever dispute their rightful share of resources with each other. Even before the commissioning of the reactor at Kudankulam, its neighbour Kerala is demanding its share of power. What Tamil Nadu eventually gets out of the 1000 MW will be a minuscule amount after deducting 50% utilization, T&D losses and sharing with other states.
Even assuming an optimistic figure of approximately 300MW of actual usable power for the state, it does not make any logical sense to undertake such a costly and dangerous project. If this project was submitted to a bank for getting a loan, it would probably not even cross over to the bank manager! But here, the government is bankrolling the investment, certifying its environmental safety, its viability and liability – in short, it is just the whim and ego of the stubborn government.
10) Everyone agrees that large industrial accidents can (and do) occur. However, in case of nuclear accidents, the scope of damage done to all kinds of living matter is unlimited. And the most dangerous and sad truth is that all future generations will face fatal consequences. Chernobyl’s children are a tragic testimony of living death. Being handicapped only because your previous generations were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation is probably nature’s way of telling mankind that what you sow, you shall reap.
11) Every nation seeks to be self sufficient, and rightly so. However, in its haste to prove its self-reliance, the government is hiding a very crucial point. We simply don’t have the raw material needed for our atomic power plants. Uranium is scarce and a rare element found naturally. Dr. Homi Bhaba had a vision of making India self sufficient in power by building nuclear power projects. Although a man of vision, he envisaged a nuclear India based on thorium, not uranium. Thorium is abundantly available in India while scarce uranium can only be procured from friendly nations at a huge diplomatic and political cost. Although thorium reserves exist in plenty, the first reactor will come up only in 2016 at the earliest. Even this form of atomic energy has its own problems but in the 1950s and 60s thorium was considered absolutely safe.
12) India refuses to change its mindset with regards to atomic energy and equates it to “national pride” when actually the truth is that even at Kudankulam and Jaitapur, foreigners are doing all the work. Russians at the former and the French at the latter. Where is the national pride in doing a copy+paste job?
13) The ‘super secret’ nuclear technology is a thing of the past. And people have realized that the only thing atomic energy achieves is to boil water, nothing more, nothing less, except at the astronomical cost of constructing, running, maintaining and dismantling them.
In the process, the irreversible damage to man, nature, environment and the future is accepted as a “small price to pay for development.” When one looks at it rationally, it is actually a “huge price paid for questionable development.”
14) The western countries are concerned with Iranian and North Korean plans of building nuclear facilities, apparently of “peaceful” purposes. The developed nations are concerned because they know the real reasons! Uranium enrichment done in the name of peaceful activity is clandestinely diverted to developing nuclear weapons. ?Most experts believe both India and Pakistan are doing this and are running scared of the consequences. A tiny suitcase sized atomic bomb can wipe out a country of any meaningful size – many times over.
This is not paranoia. This is believed to have happened when the erstwhile Soviet Union broke up. The Russians spent a huge amount on recovering some of these lost/stolen “dirty bombs,” but have certainly not accounted for all of them. Does a nation factor in a situation of anarchy or civil war in which its people throw over a rogue dictator? And what if that rogue decided to “sell” or “barter” this destructive knowledge?
15) The threat of terrorists attacking nuclear installations is a clear and present danger. Just last month, an activist flew a small airplane over a French nuclear reactor and dropped a series of flares to send a message that nuclear safety is a myth. Breaches of this type have been done at various installations across the world. Ironically, leaders of the “most powerful nuclear nations” recently conducted a high level summit where they congratulated themselves on their nuclear safety!
16) The use of atomic energy for energy security has dissolved lately with so many industrialized nations either reducing or shelving nuclear energy programs. At least they have admitted that renewable energy is a workable alternative. While earlier there were cost concerns and problems with dependable supply, newer research in solar and wind power have taken care of them. Additionally, the new “smart grids” ensure reliable power on tap.
Anuj Wankhede
5/16/2012
1) Nuclear Energy is the most powerful discovery made by humans – both for peace and war.? The sheer damage that nuclear power can cause is so huge that it will destroy the entire human race and life on earth.
2) Nuclear Energy is NOT a clean source of energy. From uranium mining, processing, cooling the reactors to the disposal of nuclear waste – all are highly polluting.
3) Radiation is a silent killer. The harm caused by a nuclear reactor even without an accident can be judged by the fact that there is an alarmingly high rate of cancer among those working in them. This information is available in the public domain and relates to studies done at Kalpakkam and Tarapur in India. Ironically, the studies are by the same government of India which claims nuclear Energy is safe!
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
Children say no to nuclear in Koodankulam
4) The world has seen how nuclear accidents occur out of both design flaws as well as natural disasters. The Three Mile accident in the United States was due to a design flaw in the emergency alarm system and what happened at Fukushima was a culmination of rank bad designing coupled with nature’s fury.
5) The desalination plants will suck in sea water, filter (kill) marine life and convert it into fresh water for cooling the huge reactors. What does not get filtered gets evaporated in steam used to distill the salty sea water. This causes severe marine biodiversity changes as can be seen in the Middle East.
These result in the formation of toxic algae laden “Red Tides” and the fish breeding in these areas are poisonous to humans and declared unfit for consumption. The Kudankulam project will certainly alter the biodiversity of the Bay of Bengal in general, and the Gulf of Mannar in particular. Marine experts agree and emphasize this profoundly rich and bio-diverse ecology needs the stewardship of preservation.
6) Japan, a heavily industrialized technologically advanced nation, shut down all its 54 nuclear reactors and is still getting along without the sort of crippling power cuts across India. More pertinently, the Japanese government agrees the any decision to restart the nuclear facilities should be ratified by the local people.
In India, the Kudankulam and Jaitapur nuclear power projects are coming up despite stiff and open public agitation. The government refuses transparency and does not share necessary information regarding safety and other concerns. The former reactor is being started almost in a military style secret operation. Bear in mind that the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) has asked the government to make this information available to the public!
7) While a 1000MW power project sounds impressive, nuclear reactors in India average at 40 to 50% utilization levels. Even after this, there are huge energy losses which are simply accounted as “Transmission & Distribution (T&D)” losses. It is nothing but an admission of failure to deliver efficiently whatever power is generated.
8 ) The power sector is facing a huge deficit on account of the losses mentioned above and also because of “under recovery” of dues. This is a euphemism for money written off for providing free power to large industrial units and big farmers – both well connected politically and providing money for election purposes.
9) State governments forever dispute their rightful share of resources with each other. Even before the commissioning of the reactor at Kudankulam, its neighbour Kerala is demanding its share of power. What Tamil Nadu eventually gets out of the 1000 MW will be a minuscule amount after deducting 50% utilization, T&D losses and sharing with other states.
Even assuming an optimistic figure of approximately 300MW of actual usable power for the state, it does not make any logical sense to undertake such a costly and dangerous project. If this project was submitted to a bank for getting a loan, it would probably not even cross over to the bank manager! But here, the government is bankrolling the investment, certifying its environmental safety, its viability and liability – in short, it is just the whim and ego of the stubborn government.
10) Everyone agrees that large industrial accidents can (and do) occur. However, in case of nuclear accidents, the scope of damage done to all kinds of living matter is unlimited. And the most dangerous and sad truth is that all future generations will face fatal consequences. Chernobyl’s children are a tragic testimony of living death. Being handicapped only because your previous generations were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation is probably nature’s way of telling mankind that what you sow, you shall reap.
11) Every nation seeks to be self sufficient, and rightly so. However, in its haste to prove its self-reliance, the government is hiding a very crucial point. We simply don’t have the raw material needed for our atomic power plants. Uranium is scarce and a rare element found naturally. Dr. Homi Bhaba had a vision of making India self sufficient in power by building nuclear power projects. Although a man of vision, he envisaged a nuclear India based on thorium, not uranium. Thorium is abundantly available in India while scarce uranium can only be procured from friendly nations at a huge diplomatic and political cost. Although thorium reserves exist in plenty, the first reactor will come up only in 2016 at the earliest. Even this form of atomic energy has its own problems but in the 1950s and 60s thorium was considered absolutely safe.
12) India refuses to change its mindset with regards to atomic energy and equates it to “national pride” when actually the truth is that even at Kudankulam and Jaitapur, foreigners are doing all the work. Russians at the former and the French at the latter. Where is the national pride in doing a copy+paste job?
13) The ‘super secret’ nuclear technology is a thing of the past. And people have realized that the only thing atomic energy achieves is to boil water, nothing more, nothing less, except at the astronomical cost of constructing, running, maintaining and dismantling them.
In the process, the irreversible damage to man, nature, environment and the future is accepted as a “small price to pay for development.” When one looks at it rationally, it is actually a “huge price paid for questionable development.”
14) The western countries are concerned with Iranian and North Korean plans of building nuclear facilities, apparently of “peaceful” purposes. The developed nations are concerned because they know the real reasons! Uranium enrichment done in the name of peaceful activity is clandestinely diverted to developing nuclear weapons. ?Most experts believe both India and Pakistan are doing this and are running scared of the consequences. A tiny suitcase sized atomic bomb can wipe out a country of any meaningful size – many times over.
This is not paranoia. This is believed to have happened when the erstwhile Soviet Union broke up. The Russians spent a huge amount on recovering some of these lost/stolen “dirty bombs,” but have certainly not accounted for all of them. Does a nation factor in a situation of anarchy or civil war in which its people throw over a rogue dictator? And what if that rogue decided to “sell” or “barter” this destructive knowledge?
15) The threat of terrorists attacking nuclear installations is a clear and present danger. Just last month, an activist flew a small airplane over a French nuclear reactor and dropped a series of flares to send a message that nuclear safety is a myth. Breaches of this type have been done at various installations across the world. Ironically, leaders of the “most powerful nuclear nations” recently conducted a high level summit where they congratulated themselves on their nuclear safety!
16) The use of atomic energy for energy security has dissolved lately with so many industrialized nations either reducing or shelving nuclear energy programs. At least they have admitted that renewable energy is a workable alternative. While earlier there were cost concerns and problems with dependable supply, newer research in solar and wind power have taken care of them. Additionally, the new “smart grids” ensure reliable power on tap.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Canada Support No Nuclear Energy Facebook Groups Pages
Greenpeace Canada
http://www.facebook.com/greenpeace.canada
16054
International
http://nuke6.blogspot.com/2011/10/support-no-nuclear-energy-nuclear-free.html
Sierra Club Canada
http://www.facebook.com/sierraclubcanada
2040
Say No to Nuclear Waste Storage in Northern Saskatchewan
http://www.facebook.com/sayno2nuclearwaste
1396
No More Nuclear Power!
http://www.facebook.com/groups/208485245834151/
123
Stop Nuclear Power in Canada
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=107091315982809
66
End Nuclear Power Now Canada!
http://www.facebook.com/groups/ENPNC/
25
CCNR - Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
http://on.fb.me/rviDMz
22
http://www.facebook.com/greenpeace.canada
16054
International
http://nuke6.blogspot.com/2011/10/support-no-nuclear-energy-nuclear-free.html
Sierra Club Canada
http://www.facebook.com/sierraclubcanada
2040
Say No to Nuclear Waste Storage in Northern Saskatchewan
http://www.facebook.com/sayno2nuclearwaste
1396
No More Nuclear Power!
http://www.facebook.com/groups/208485245834151/
123
Stop Nuclear Power in Canada
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=107091315982809
66
End Nuclear Power Now Canada!
http://www.facebook.com/groups/ENPNC/
25
CCNR - Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
http://on.fb.me/rviDMz
22
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Turkey Support No Nuclear Energy Facebook Groups Pages
Greenpeace Akdeniz - Türkiye
http://www.facebook.com/Greenpeace.Akdeniz.Turkiye
352724
International
http://nuke6.blogspot.com/2011/10/support-no-nuclear-energy-nuclear-free.html
Stop The Akkuyu Nuclear Plant In Turkey
http://www.facebook.com/groups/166234483432234/
218
Against Nuclear Power Plants in Turkey
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Against-Nuclear-Power-Plants-in-Turkey/117625428315176
205
Say No to nuclear power station in Akkuyu, Turkey
Akkuyu´da Nükleer Enerji Santrali´a istemiyoruz!!
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Say-No-to-nuclear-power-station-in-Akkuyu-Turkey/189747534393763
117
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Korea Government sponsored research institute recommends move away from nuclear energy
Government sponsored research institute recommends move away from nuclear energy
The report refutes a renewed push by the Lee administration to expand nuclear power following a series of nuclear accidents
The Hankyoreh
By Nam Jong-young
Dec.15, 2011
A policy research institute has issued a report recommending the end of both current lifetime extensions for existing nuclear power plants and plans to build new plants, in order to promote sustainable development for future generations.
“It is desirable for future generations that we only use nuclear plants currently in operation until the end of their original limits of use and that we do not build any more new plants,” said Gang Gwang-gyu, head of the Korea Environment Institute’s Environmental Appraisal Center.
“Instead of reconsidering policies to supply more energy using nuclear plants, we should change to an energy policy that makes managing demand, including the promotion of energy saving, a priority.”
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
The report is expected to cause controversy because it comes in contrast to the Lee Myung-bak administration’s policy of planning to build more nuclear plants despite the accident that occurred at Fukushima in Japan in March this year.
Before the report came out, unease had been growing regarding the safety of nuclear plants and the balancing of supply of and demand for electricity this winter, due to a series of problems where nuclear plants broke down.
At around 8:36 a.m. on Dec. 14, the 950,000kW No.3 reactor at Gori Nuclear Power Site in Busan came to a standstill and stopped generating electricity.
Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co. Lt. stated, “Excessive voltage in the turbine generator caused a protective relay to come into operation, ceasing electricity generation. We are investigating the exact cause of the accident.”
This incident took place just over 12 hours after the 1,000,000kW No. 1 reactor at a nuclear plant in Uljin was stopped at around 8 p.m. the previous day. This brings the number of reactors stopped for maintenance or because of breaking down to five out South Korea’s total of 21.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Bangladesh Support No Nuclear Energy Facebook Groups Pages
Raise Your Voice against Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant
http://www.facebook.com/groups/nailyakada/
260
International
http://nuke6.blogspot.com/2011/10/support-no-nuclear-energy-nuclear-free.html
Stand against nuclear power project and save Ishurdi
http://www.facebook.com/groups/cityishurdi/
purpose of this group organize the people who lives in Ishurdi as well as the people of Bangladesh against Roppur nuclear power project. 142
Stop Nuclear Power Project And Save Country
http://www.facebook.com/groups/210300475681245/
Purpose of this group organize the people of bangladesh against "roppur nuclear power project" roppur,ishurdi, pabna and save the country form the danger of nuclear power as well as create consciousness among the people about the danger of nuclear power project. 82
Greenpeace Bangladesh
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=55369181918
58
No Nuclear Powerplant in Bangladesh
http://www.facebook.com/pages/No-Nuclear-Powerplant-in-Bangladesh/275496895810838
4
Monday, December 5, 2011
Expert: Nuclear energy 'does not reduce the price of electricity'
Expert: Nuclear energy 'does not reduce the price of electricity'
2 December 2011
EurActiv
Nuclear power plants are attractive for their owners but not necessarily for the consumer, says Alois Tost, independent expert consultant on energy issues.
Alois Tost is an Independent consultant on nuclear energy and renewable energy sources in Europe. He spoke to the Editor of EurActiv Czech Republic Adéla Denková.
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
Germany had already started to consider a nuclear phase-out several years ago but things have moved very quickly on the issue since the Fukushima accident. What happened in the political discussion on the nuclear power in Germany during the last years and months?
The nuclear phase-out started to be a serious topic in Germany in the year 2000 at the time of the government of the Social Democratic Party and the Greens. They negotiated with the energy business to agree on the 32 years limit for nuclear power plants' lifetime. The law came into power in 2002.
But during the discussion the other parties in the parliament, especially the Christian Democrats and the Free Democratic Party were giving signals that if they became part of a ruling coalition in the future they would cancel this law. That actually happened after they have been elected in 2009. Even against a strong resistance among the population they agreed to extend the lifetime from the previously agreed dates – it was extended by 14 years for the new power plants and by 8 years for the old ones.
But the reason that launched the whole discussion in Europe was of course the Fukushima accident in March 2011. The whole of Europe not only started to discuss nuclear power but also saw how Germany reacted by switching off eight power plants immediately.
Later on, the German government returned to the original law and has formulated an even more clearly defined schedule for the phase-out. This restored law was not only approved by the ruling parties but naturally by the Social Democrats and the Greens as well.
It even became a subject to criticism as some say that when you have a law backed by such a strong majority you should insert it into the constitution. Because then you will never find a majority which would be able to cancel it in the foreseeable future.
The reaction of German industry to the governments' decision was, not surprisingly, negative. How does the industry deal with the shift away from the nuclear power? Will the phase-out affect the prices of energy and what will be the impact on the competitiveness of the German industry?
Before the government's decision, during the discussion whether to expand the lifetime of the nuclear power plants or not, the industry started several campaigns and lobbying in favour of the expansion of the nuclear plants' lifetime. But as soon as this decision was reneged, industry started to support the expansion of coal power plants. Probably because nowadays we have no party in the parliament that is pro-nuclear power anymore.
Anyway there is still a certain level of criticism towards the nuclear phase-out because many companies think that the change was taken too quickly. They are afraid of blackouts which might appear especially in winter when the demand for energy is higher and renewable sources provide less electricity than in the summer. It has to be taken into consideration that this explanation might mainly aim to support their wish for lower electricity prices.
Of course the companies state that the phase-out will lower the competitiveness. But we have to consider that there is only a very small part of the German industry really dependent on electricity prices, for example the production of aluminium or steel.
But even the steel industry, which is considered to be a big consumer of electricity, is not so dependent on electricity prices. If the electricity cost rises by 20%, the production cost in the steel industry will rise by only by 1.5%. Such change in prices can easily happen also with the costs of raw materials or coal which are also very important in the steel industry.
After a nuclear phase-out, there are several energy sources which can fill the gap. One of them is coal. Will the phase-out bring the expansion of coal thus decelerating the pace of achieving the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020?
No. We have to consider the emissions trading system. There is a defined cap for the emissions in the EU by 2020. And the production of electricity is part of the emission trading system. There is a certain amount of emission certificates which is allocated to the power plants. If a utility company decides to invest into a coal power plant, of course they have to buy the emissions certificates for the power plant as well. Nobody really knows how the price of the certificates will develop.
Nowadays the prices of the certificates are very low and it seems to be profitable to invest into a coal power plant. There are also many gas power plants that have been built or are under construction in Germany.
This is maybe because the companies await the rise in the prices of the emission certificates when less and less of them will be allocated.
So if somebody says that a new coal power plant will cause a rise in CO2 emission, it is not true because the amount is defined and no more emission certificates will be allocated just because a new power plant is being built.
A nuclear power plant does not reduce the carbon dioxide emissions either. Nuclear plants simply do not buy any carbon dioxide certificates and in fact the use of the nuclear power lowers the price of the certificates.
I have never heard about this aspect in the Czech public discussion.
In Germany this aspect was publicly discussed already before Fukushima when the government supported the expansion of the nuclear power plants lifetime and was explaining that it will decrease the carbon dioxide emission – but this was not true.
The carbon dioxide certificates get cheaper with expanding the use of the nuclear power. You could see it after Fukushima when the certificates immediately became more expensive by nearly 2 euros per tonne.
Another way to fill the gap is renewable energy. To which extent is Germany fulfilling the 2020 target for renewables?
Germany has nearly 20 % of renewable energy in the electricity production; it was 17 % by the end of 2010.
However, the 20-20-20 bill does not only consider electricity production but the share of the renewable energy in the final electricity consumption which means electricity, heat and mobility. And in this respect, Germany is far away from having reached the 20 % – at the moment the country is at 11 %. But Germany does not have to reach 20 % as each country has its individual goals. It is 18 % for Germany which has to be reached in 2020 in comparison to 1990.
What is the role of the solar energy in German renewables? Similar to the Czech Republic, in Germany there has also been a boom of the photovoltaics. Is it profitable to support solar energy even though the geographical conditions are not ideal for that in Germany?
Photovoltaics are for sure not the most efficient way to produce renewable energy in Germany because considering that they contribute only 14.2 % to the overall renewable electricity production, their share in subsidies for renewables is 38.6 %.
If we consider the current situation it is not so easy for Germany to install solar panels for example in Spain or North Africa because nowadays we do not have sufficient transmission capacities to bring the electricity to Germany.
But it is one of the concepts for the future how to realise the idea to produce the renewable energy where it is the most efficient and to transmit it to other regions.
Is it possible to realise similar project as for example the Desertec concept focusing on North-South interconnection and the collective use of solar energy from North Africa and wind energy from North-West Europe?
Yes, it is technically possible already today. However if you see the map, you see that some of the countries supposed to take part have a problem with political instability. So we are rather facing political issues than the technical ones in this question.
The Fraunhofer-Institute for Wind Energy and Energy System Technology institute in Germany has calculated that using renewable technologies available today and a super grid in Europe and North Africa, the price of one MWh fed into the German grid is around 50€. That's very close to today's electricity price at the energy exchange.
But there are also other problems because we would need to strengthen the transmission grid. In Germany this would face a strong opposition of the population of course because usually people want to have clean energy but nobody wants to have wind mills or transmission lines in his garden.
You mentioned before that despite the usual notions, nuclear power does not push down the electricity price in favour of the customer. What is the reason for that?
The price of electricity is formed at the energy exchange and it is always determined by the most expensive power plant which is necessary to meet demand.
So we start with those power plants having the lowest marginal variable generation costs and those are usually the nuclear power plants.
Then we take the next more expensive power plants which are for example the lignite power plants. And usually it is the gas power plant which is the most expensive and determines the price of electricity.
Nuclear power plants are hardly ever the ones deciding the price.
Every power plant gets paid the price which is necessary to pay the most expensive power plant, the so-called marginal power plant. Therefore operating a nuclear power plant is highly attractive for its owner.
If you replace the capacity of a nuclear power plant for example by the capacity of a coal power plant, the price will not change because it is still the natural gas power plant being the most expensive one and deciding about the price.
It is a question of capacity. You need sufficient generation capacity in order to keep the prices low.
But if you provide this capacity by nuclear power plants, coal power plants or any other power plant with low variable cost, it will not have an impact on the price.
Now somebody can say that when the German power plants were switched off after Fukushima, the prices went up, but this was because the capacity was not replaced by cheap power plants as for example coal but from the power plants which were not in operation before, being outside the marginal price, for example gas power plants.
This is a question of who gains and who pays. When somebody says that the nuclear power plant is cheap, it is for the owner but not necessarily for the consumer.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)