A Green Road Journal

Quaker Inspired, Evidence Based, Art And Science Of Sustainable Health Plus Success - How To Create Heaven On Earth - Education For Seventh Generation Rainbow Warriors

Share this post:
John Quiggan; Nuclear Power Is TOO EXPENSIVE; Dirty, Dangerous, Global Warming And Toxic, Even More So AFTER Decommissioning Plus Long Term Storage/Security Costs Are Included - Nuclear Energy Is Totally Unreliable And Takes More Energy Than It Produces Long Term

NUCLEAR POWER IS DIRTY, DANGEROUS AND IS ALSO THE MOST EXPENSIVE ENERGY SOURCE OUT OF ALL CHOICES OUT THERE


Enviro Close Up Karl Grossman interviews leader of Beyond Nuclear Kevin Kamps, around how nuclear fuel cycle is dirty, dangerous and expensive from beginning to end, and forever. The DOE recognizes that a nuclear waste dump needs to be guarded for ONE MILLION YEARS. But there are long life radioactive isotopes that last for MANY MILLIONS OF YEARS. 
VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jhW4LS2ZxA 10 min.


In an analysis of the unsubsidized levelized cost of energy for various energy sources, investment bank Lazard found that nuclear energy would cost between 9.2 cents and 13.2 cents per kW-hr. Compare that to 6.1-8.7 cents/kW-hr for natural gas, 7.2-8.6 cents/kW-hr for utility scale solar, and 3.7-8.1 cents/kW-hr for wind energy. 
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/02/07/nuclear-energy-renaissance-takes-another-blow-and.aspx

ENERGY TYPE       COST IN CENTS PER KW/HR

NUCLEAR                          9 to 13 
NATURAL GAS                 6 - 8
SOLAR                                6 - 8
WIND                                   3 - 8


Why would ANYONE in their right mind be building ANYTHING NUCLEAR, ANYWHERE?



Via Laura Lynch THE VERDICT IS IN ON NUCLEAR POWER! DIRTY • DANGEROUS • EXPENSIVE

Just how dirty and dangerous is nuclear power? 

Just how many kinds of dirty and dangerous poisons does a nuclear plant release 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?

According to Asahi: about 1,000 kinds of radioactive materials have been released from Fukushima reactors.
http://enenews.com/asahi-sources-reveal-about-1000-kinds-of-radioactive-materials-released-from-fukushima/comment-page-1#comment-195658

What happens when a nuclear plant has an 'accident'?

The nuclear industry FORCES consumers to pay the highest prices, for the dirtiest, most dangerous, radioactive poison generating power available, when they know full well, that cheaper, carbon free and nuclear free solutions are out there.

Republicans back the nuclear cabal, and are mostly in favor of forcing consumers to pay through the nose for dirty, dangerous, expensive nuclear power, when other non toxic solutions are available at a much lower price.



TOO CHEAP TO METER PROMISE IS FALSE AND MISLEADING, AS ARE ALL OF THE OTHER 'PROMISES' MADE BY PRO NUCLEAR MARKETING 'EXPERTS' AND HORMESIS THEORY PROMOTERS

Pro nuclear power apologists put forward the claim that nuclear power is inexpensive. "In the dawn of the nuclear era, cost was expected to be one of the technology's advantages, not one of its drawbacks. The first chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Lewis Strauss, predicted in a 1954 speech that nuclear power would someday make electricity “too cheap to meter.” 

The reality compared to the promises made turned out to be quite different. “It is safe to say … that atomic power is not the means by which man will for the first time emancipate himself economically, whatever that may mean; or forever throw off his mantle of toil, whatever that may mean. Loud guffaws could be heard from some of the laboratories working on this problem if anyone should in an unfortunate moment refer to the atom as the means of throwing off man’s mantle of toil. It certainly is not that! …At present, atomic power presents an exceptionally costly and inconvenient means of obtaining energy which can be extracted much more economically from conventional fuels… . The economics of atomic power are not attractive at present, nor are they likely to be for a long time in the future. This is expensive power, not cheap power as the public has been led to believe.” C. G. Suits, Director of Research, General Electric, 1951
http://ieer.org/resource/energy-issues/atomic-myths-radioactive-realities-why-nuclear-power-is-a-poor-way-to-meet-energy-needs/

[T]he total costs of nuclear power are, in any meaningful sense, incalculable. Investors face cost overruns that could burn through even the deepest pockets. The true cost of waste disposal still is not known. The cost of decommissioning, even decades away, is also a big unknown. And the cost of catastrophic failure is more than a company as large as GE is willing to face. How can any investor calculate the return on investment with such large uncertainties?
Looking at the bigger picture, I don’t see why I or anyone should apologize for advocating developing energy resources that don’t blow up and take their investors with them. The renewable energy advocates I work with are willing, and even eager, to discuss the full costs and benefits of all sources of energy. Supporters of nuclear power should be willing to hold themselves to the same standard.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/26/970315/-And-Many-Died-Of-The-Waters-Because-They-Were-Made-Bitter# 

19 BILLION SPENT AT JUST ONE LOCATION TO TREAT NUCLEAR WASTE, BUT UP TO TODAY, NOT ONE OUNCE OF NUCLEAR WASTE HAS BEEN TREATED YET AND COST TO GUARD WASTE FOR ONE MILLION YEARS IS NOT INCLUDED IN ENERGY PRICE PAID BY CONSUMERS


Via flannelmanOctober 1, 2015 Since 1989 DOE has spent more than 19 billion to treat waste. Yet no waste has been treated. You just can't make this stuff up. Page 1 (pdf pg 6)

Of course, the cost to guard, store, treat and transport nuclear waste is not included in the cost estimates of nuclear power, when compared to renewable energy systems.

GERMANY DECIDES FORMALLY THAT NUCLEAR COMPANIES NEED TO PAY FOR DECOMMISSIONING AND WASTE DISPOSAL, NOT TAXPAYERS, BUT IN THE US, TAXPAYERS ARE ON THE HOOK FOR ALL OF IT


In October, Germany set up a high-level eleven-member commission, KFK, to review the financing of the nuclear phase-out. The government's goal was to ensure comprehensive safety, decommissioning and waste disposal processes, and see to it that their costs would be borne by nuclear power companies, not by taxpayers. "The tasks of interim storage of radioactive waste, manufacturing of waste containers, and construction and operation of final repositories, and transfer of waste from interim storage to final repositories should be transferred to the state," the KFK said in a statement released Wednesday in Berlin.

In the US, taxpayers get the privilege of paying for all of this. 

JOHN QUIGGAN SAYS NUCLEAR IS TOO EXPENSIVE, NOT COMMERCIALLY VIABLE


John Quiggan, a prize winning very respected economist,  says that that reviving nuclear power debates is a distraction, and the main problem with the nuclear option is that it is not economically-viable. Quiggin says that we need more efficient energy use and more renewable energy commercialisation.[8]

The financial black holes that the nuclear industry causes and cost over runs have only grown and gotten worse since that time...

NUCLEAR POWER PLANT FORCES CUSTOMERS TO PAY 200% MORE THAN ANY OTHER ENERGY SOURCE

Nuclear power can no longer compete on an even playing field of the open market and free enterprise system. To survive, nuclear power has to collect 900 percent more subsidies and entitlements than renewable energy. To survive, nuclear power plants have to charge much more than any other energy source. To survive, nuclear energy has to hide most of it's costs, such as decommissioning, labor and waste disposal plus storage. None of these additional costs are factored into the comparison of nuclear energy compared to other sources of energy. 

Here is just ONE example of a nuclear power plant that charges twice as much as any other energy source, and gets away with it.. 

In other example of how nuclear energy requires artificial life support while charging more than anyone else...

Bill D November 12, 2014 "And the Nuclear Village firewall good news just keeps on coming.

Law360, New York (November 17, 2006, 12:00 AM ET) — A key panel for the Louisiana legislature has signed off on a plan to infuse Entergy New Orleans Inc. with $200 million in federal hurricane recovery aid to help it move closer toward emerging from bankruptcy. According to Andy Kopplin, the executive director of Gov. Kathleen Blanco’s Louisiana Recovery Authority (LRA); the aid will put an end to a $32 per month average increase for Entergy customers, but the funding will not prevent customers from paying higher rates than other Louisiana utility customers.
http://www.law360.com/articles/13785?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=articles_search

TWO NEW NUCLEAR ELEPHANTS CLOSE TO COLLAPSE, WILL DOUBLE COST OF POWER THROUGH SUBSIDIES ALONE


LONDON—Plans to build two giant nuclear reactors in south-west England are being reviewed as French energy companies now seek financial backing from China and Saudi Arabia—while the British government considers whether it has offered vast subsidies for a white elephant.

In order to induce EDF to build them, it offered subsidies of £37 billion in guaranteed electricity prices over the 60-year life of the reactors. This would double the existing cost of electricity in the UK.

The European Commission gave permission for this to happen, despite the distortion to the competitive electricity market. But this decision is set to be challenged in the European Court by the Austrian government and renewable energy companies, which will further delay the project.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/europes_nuclear_giants_are_close_to_collapse_20141124

EXELON EXTRACTS 300 MILLION PER YEAR FOR MONEY LOSING NUCLEAR PLANTS FROM DOWNSTATE CUSTOMERS, RAISES RATES FROM $3 TO $150 PER MEGAWATT DAY



Consumer advocates were shocked at the price spike downstate. Unlike the eastern regional grid—PJM Interconnection—serving Northern Illinois, where most of Exelon's nukes operate, capacity and energy prices in MISO historically have been significantly lower. Indeed, in the 14 other states MISO serves, capacity prices in the recent auction came in at a little over $3 per megawatt-day. In downstate Illinois, it was $150. Currently, MISO capacity charges downstate are just $16.75. “Even though we have a surplus of capacity and are a net exporter of power, Illinois consumers will pay 50 times more for capacity,” said David Kolata, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board watchdog group. “That's just on its face a patently absurd result. 

NUCLEAR PLANTS COST SIX TIMES MORE TO OPERATE THAN ANY OTHER OPTION

One way that the nuclear industry gets away with the claim that they are cheaper or cost competitive is that they do not include labor in the comparison of energy costs. If the cost of labor is compared, the cost to run and maintain a normally operating nuclear power plant is actually 600% more than any other form of power generation. Think about it.. Do you see people staffing those wind generators as they do their power generating? Do you see people riding the tidal power generators?

Compared side by side with gas turbine power generators, nuclear power is 600% more expensive, but when one compares it to wind, solar or other renewable energy sources that do not need staff watching over them 24 hours a day, 365 days per year, in order to prevent them from melting down and blowing up, and then killing millions of people, the differences become even more dramatic and stark. 

PHD DESCRIBES HOW NUCLEAR ENERGY HAS FAILED ECONOMICALLY IN 74 PAGE DISSERTATION


Via stock November 15, 2014  Here is a 74 page dissertation written by a PhD describing how nuclear has failed economically. Just one thing to add…..Kewaunee cost the buyer $200M, Vogtle will cost $16,000 million, or 80 times more. Kewaunee failed on economics. How can Vogtle even have a chance?
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2014/11/nuclear-has-failed-economically-even.html

FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY MONOPOLY FEASTS ARE TAXPAYER TROUGH, COLLECTS 5.3 TRILLION IN ENTITLEMENTS AND CORPORATE WELFARE


‘Shocking’ revelation finds $5.3tn subsidy estimate for 2015 is greater than the total health spending of all the world’s governments

Part of what supports the fossil fuel and nuclear monopolistic industries are these massive corporate subsidies, corporate welfare and entitlements, which are TEN TIMES larger or even more than what the renewable energy industry is getting.

Without these subsidies, solar, wind, geothermal and other sustainable industries would be growing much faster, and they would be making much more profit. 

WORLD BANK REFUSES TO FINANCE NUCLEAR PLANTS, BECAUSE THEY ARE MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE  AND THAN OTHER OPTIONS AND TOO RISKY

The World Bank had stated before that nuclear power is not the least-cost option and has not financed a nuclear reactor project since 1959, the first and only time it did so," Lim said. Far from being carbon-neutral, a 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant would generate 30 tonnes of highly radioactive waste each year that remain radioactive for half a million years, he said.
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/dap-blasts-bns-nuclear-power-plans-calls-it-a-threat-to-health-safety#sthash.UMEY14oX.y2Vf7OQy.dpuf

The world bank may be worth listening to, wouldn't you agree? After all, if they think it is too risky and not a good investment, why would anyone else?

World Bank says no money for nuclear power
http://www.nuclearpowerdaily.com/reports/World_Bank_says_no_money_for_nuclear_power_999.html

NUCLEAR MORE EXPENSIVE THAN WIND OR NATURAL GAS


Via rogerthat September 26, 2014  Annette Lu labels Ma a liar at forum on nuclear energy. By Sean Lin / Staff reporter --- Nuclear power is not the cheapest way to generate electricity, as President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration claims, former vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) yesterday said at the No Nuke Asia Forum (NNAF), citing statistics showing the price of nuclear energy per kilowatt-hour (kWh) is significantly higher than that of energy produced by wind or natural gas.

Citing a survey conducted by Bloomberg New Energy Finance, which compared the cost of 23 methods of energy production last year — including wind, solar, geothermal and natural gas — Lu said that the government has been lying to the public in saying that nuclear energy is the most cost-efficient method of generating electricity.

The survey showed that, even calculated from a 92 percent facility utilization rate, which Lu said is considered an ideal circumstance for nuclear plants, the cost for nuclear energy per kWh was about US$0.14, significantly higher than the price per kWh of energy generated from geothermal, hydraulic, or wind sources, which stood at US$0.065, US$0.077 and US$0.082, respectively…

JEREMY RIFKIN SAYS NUCLEAR POWER IS DEAD, GIVES FIVE REASONS WHY


Jeremy Rifkin gives 5 very powerful reasons why nuclear power is dead in the video above. To have a chance of changing global warming, we would need to build an additional 1,600 nuclear plants, starting this year, and build 1,600 plants each year for the next 20 years. That is not going to happen. We don't know how to get rid of nuclear waste, there is no answer.
VIDEO: http://youtu.be/mwIvGJJ_dtU

Uranium deficits start happening with existing plants within a few years. Recycling uranium doesn't work because it generates plutonium. We don't have the water to spare for the nuclear industry. France uses 40% of the water in France, threatening agriculture.

Ocean fronted nuclear plants don't work, as Fukushima proved. Nuclear does not fit the new model of collaborative, scaled and renewable energy sources, via the third 'clean energy' industrial revolution. Bottom line, it is not a good business deal, no investor will put his money into it, as it is way too risky. So why do it?

NO ANSWER FOR NUCLEAR WASTE; 400,000 TONS TO BE GENERATED BY 2030, MUST BE STORED AND GUARDED FOR 1 MILLION YEARS


There is no answer for the nuclear waste, and it is generated at thousands of tons per year. Why keep making it, where there is no solution for what to do with it? Also, taxpayers in the US have the privilege of paying for this disposal and guarding of radioactive garbage for the next million years. Why? 

RECYCLING SPENT FUEL COMES WITH A STAGGERING PRICE TAG THAT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE ENERGY COST OR CONSTRUCTION COST OF NUCLEAR POWER


Via VanneV December 23, 2014 :="Rokkasho: nuclear white elephant or yen sucking black hole?
Sep 21, 2013 “…A report issued recently by the Princeton, New Jersey-based International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM), compiled by independent nuclear experts, gives a failing grade to Japan’s nuclear fuel recycling policy and urges reconsideration because it is, ‘dysfunctional, dangerous and costly” and because “Japan is undermining the non-proliferation regime.’ The IPFM recommends, inter alia, a government takeover of spent fuel management, air-cooled dry-cask storage of spent fuel at nuclear power plants, continuation of local subsidies to offset axing the reprocessing project and deep burial of Japan’s 44 tons of separated plutonium….

Recycling spent fuel comes with a staggering price tag; a projected $245 billion over 40 years."


NUCLEAR INDUSTRY TAXPAYER ENTITLEMENTS AND WELFARE PROGRAMS GROWING, NOT SHRINKING

Government subsidies in the form of corporate welfare "to the nuclear power industry over the past fifty years have been so large in proportion to the value of the energy produced that in some cases it would have cost taxpayers less to simply buy kilowatts on the open market and give them away, according to a February 2011 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The report, Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies, looks at the economic impacts and policy implications of subsidies to the nuclear power industry—past, present, and proposed.

"Global subsidies for oil, gas, and coal amounted to $409 billion in 2010 — compared with $60 billion for renewable energy that year." (Add another 40-60 Billion For nuclear corporate welfare in the US alone). This does not include the cost of welfare for the military use of nuclear power and the cleanup costs of former military nuclear installations. If those are included, this cost goes up even more drastically. 

"Cutting those subsidies would be economically efficient, reduce overall energy consumption, and level the playing field with renewable power. The International Energy Agency suggests that removing fossil fuel subsidies would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by as much as 2.6 gigatonnes a year by 2035. That’s half of what’s required to prevent the planet’s average temperature from increasing by two degrees centigrade or more per year."
http://nuclear-news.net/2012/10/22/taxpayers-still-paying-up-for-dirty-energy/


Source: DBL Investors[DBL Investors, September 2011]

Why are communities and nations supporting dead ender carbon and nuclear industries that only strangle and put to an end the one hope that humanity has, which is a zero carbon, zero nuclear future? Bio fuels are carbon fuels, and cause the same global warming that oil and gas do. They are not the solution.

Zero Carbon Renewable Energy subsidies                          .37
Nuclear Power Dead Ender entitlement programs        $9.44

If this does not tell you who is in control in Washington and on the mass media, nothing will. Follow the money. It always tells the truth.

NUCLEAR INDUSTRY FEEDS OFF OF TAXPAYERS, KEEPS THE PROFITS BUT LEAVES THE MESS AND DISASTERS TO TAXPAYERS


Cataclysmic December 18, 2014 "Nuclear Cabal gets around a Trillion a year if you look into the GAO.. it is hidden in lots of places. But, the industry as a whole, feeds off the taxpayer like nothing else. Especially insidious to sue the taxpayer because there is no solution for the spent fuel, and somehow, these corporations make profit, but stick it to us to manage the mess. Good grief!  Then you look at the contracts for example, Hanford, and you will find that the taxpayer defends the corporation against whistle blowers, paying all of the legal fees for said corporation. So, they ignore, then when it leaks out, they deny, then get attorneys involved eventually settle but every last cent of that is tax payer money. Disgusting."

Via VanneV December 18, 2014 "Money For Nothing
“CB&I (formerly Shaw, formerly Stone & Webster, indicted for racketeering in Tennessee) is running three gargantuan scams right under our noses: MOX, Vogtle and Summer. All are being funded one way or another with public money, either in federal taxes, electric nuke taxes AKA CWIP Construction Work In Progress, or soaring rates on Georgia and South Carolina residential electricity bills. All are behind schedule, over budget and suffer from the same quality control issues. There are no customers for MOX plutonium fuel, neither is there a market for Vogtle nuclear power as Georgia Power is currently at 45% unused capacity. You got to hand it to CB&I for figuring out how to get money for nothing and have pity for the people of our great land who are getting nothing for their money.”

CARBON FUEL COMPANIES RECEIVE 88 BILLION PER YEAR IN CORPORATE WELFARE ENTITLEMENTS


The Guardian exposes the fact that despite the world's nations agreeing that carbon emissions must be cut by a huge amount, carbon fuel companies are still receiving 88 Billion per year in subsidies each year. The nuclear industry also receives a huge subsidy, despite it also being global warming. Meanwhile, the fossil fuel industry only receives about 10% of what the nuclear industry receives alone, all by itself. Add in the carbon fuel industry subsidies and the share that renewables receives shrinks even more drastically.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/11/rich-countries-subsidising-oil-gas-and-coal-companies-by-88bn-a-year?CMP=EMCENVEML1631

What result do people expect, when almost all of the money is thrown at the problem, instead of the solution? 

NO INSURANCE COMPANY OR INVESTOR WILL TOUCH NUCLEAR ANYTHING


There is no insurance company or investor willing to take on the cost or risk of nuclear power, especially after Fukushima. No Japanese nuclear power plant can get insurance coverage, and they were all cancelled. 

The public, through taxpayer promises, is the ONLY entity promising to cover anything and everything if a nuclear plant melts down or has an accident. When investors and insurance companies are unwilling to put their money into something, that should be a HUGE red flag warning. Why is this red flag being ignored, especially when solutions are now available that are cheaper and much safer?

Nuclear Industry Controls Mass Media, But Cannot Get Nuclear Plant Insurance Coverage
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/03/tepco-loses-insurance-coverage-for-all.html

At the Wermuth Asset Management, 5th Annual Investors Event, Jeremy Rifkin predicts the future of nuclear power, and gives 5 reasons why it is a dead end technology and non starter as a future energy source. Who is Jeremy Rifkin;?*CNN: "Internationally renowned economist"; Forbes: "Economist and energy visionary [...] advisor to the European Union and to heads of state around the world."

Japan has lost all insurance coverage for it's fleet of 50 plus idled and shut down nuclear plants. No insurance company will insure them. And even if they could get insurance, the premiums to cover a potential 1 Trillion dollar loss would double electric rates or more. To restart the nuclear plants in Japan will mean going 'naked' and operating them with no insurance at all. Eventually, this is the same story that will be faced by nuclear plants globally. There will be no insurance at all, because 1 Trillion dollars in losses would bankrupt the largest insurance company and they cannot afford to take that risk at any premium cost. 

COST OVER RUNS OF 400% THE RULE, NOT THE EXCEPTION

Cost overruns and skyrocketing total amounts that often exceed 400% of the initial bid are more often the rule than the exception when it comes to nuclear power plants. Could this be one reason why the U.S. no longer builds nuclear power plants, and why no other country should build any new ones either? 

"When Duke Energy in 2007 announced a proposed two-unit nuclear power plant in South Carolina, it estimated it would cost $5 to $6 billion. Today, that estimate is $11 billion. Similarly, in 2007, Progress Energy announced it would seek to build two reactors in Levy County, Fla., for $9.4 billion. That price-tag has risen to $17.2 billion.

These examples are not the exception, but are the NORM. If you agreed to buy a new car for 20,000, and then before you could take delivery, the price quadrupled, and the car now will cost you $80,000, how would you feel about that? Would you still agree to do business with that firm?

What if this '400% increase' price did not include junking the car at the end of it's life? What would you think of this car company if at the end of the life of the car, the company charged you this same quadruple price of a new car to 'decommission' the car?

And this total cost does not included the storage of the high level nuclear waste materials either. Add that cost on top of everything. This is a rough example of what the nuclear industry is doing, but in reality, it is even worse than that, when one factors in the hidden costs of the fuel cycle and radioactive contamination of the whole world.

COST OVER RUN OF 400 TO 1,000 PERCENT IS NOW THE NORM FOR NEW NUCLEAR PLANTS


What about the Green River reactors? In 2007, Tilton said they would cost $3 billion. Today, Blue Castle's estimate is between $13 and $16 billion. If history is any guide, that number will continue to go up. In an op-ed ("Costs of nuclear energy in Utah," Aug. 2), Professor Bernell Stone of the BYU management school noted that for the 108 nuclear power plants built so far in the U.S., the actual cost exceeded projected cost by an average of four times."

Building a nuclear plant is super expensive. Running a nuclear plant is orders of magnitude more expensive than any other type of power plant. But even dismantling them and storing the nuclear garbage that must be guarded for a million years is so expensive that all by itself, a utility could purchase power at retail prices from some where else, and then give it way and make out better that way. And the cost of storing the nuclear waste for 1 million years is added on top of all of that. Is nuclear power making sense yet?

SORRY, 100 YEARS OF DECOMMISSIONING COSTS NOT INCLUDED IN COST COMPARISON WITH OTHER ENERGY SOURCES


When the analysts compare the costs of nuclear to everything else, they do not include the costs of labor to run the plants, which are much higher than any other energy source. They also do not include decomissioning costs. Wouldn't this be called lying and cheating? If not, why not?

Let's dive into just ONE nuclear power plant, (Trawsfynnydd) and see what happens financially over the life of just ONE power plant, without including environmental and energy costs for mining, refining and purifying of uranium to power it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trawsfynydd_nuclear_power_station

Construction on this nuclear power plant began in 1959. It was operational in 1968 and then it shut down in 1991. It was in operation for 33 years, which is the safe design basis for nuclear power plants, for many reasons. http://www.nda.gov.uk/sites/trawsfynydd/

This ONE nuclear power plant will not be fully decommissioned until 2073. This means that it may take one hundred years to decommission an average nuclear power plant like the one above. The 100 year decommissioning process deals with just a small fraction of the toxic, nuclear waste that an average plant produces. 

In another case, a Quebec nuclear reactor shutdown will cost $1.8 Billion. Tje Gentilly-2 plant near Trois-Rivières is to be dismantled over 50 years. Have you ever heard of any other type of power plant taking 50 years to take apart and dispose of?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2012/10/03/montreal-gentilly-2-shutdown-cost-hydro-quebec.html

Via stock October 17, 2014  "Vermont Yankee is closing, they came up with some estimate to decomm the plant.

1.5 Billion

But they say don't worry, we have $600M to do it with, and in 2002 it was only $300M And they won't finish dry cask until 2052 (unless of course they are bankrupt by then, and then they won't finish anything). And even their 1.5B is a lie out of the gate, read the footnotes….those costs don't include vendor profit which will be added later. Page 57

NRC requires nuke operators to hold fund for decomm. The regulators require $135M. Real costs are going to run $2B to $3B. OF COURSE all these companies will go bankrupt! That is the "smartest" way out."

Decommissioning costs for a nuclear plant that has NO ACCIDENT is like buying a car, running it for 10 years, then having to PAY to have someone dismantle it for another 20-30 years, while making car payments on 2 more new cars during that time. Does this make any economic sense to you yet?

And we have not even talked about the cost of guarding and disposing of the toxic, deadly, poisonous radioactive garbage that these plants produce. This would be like you buying a car, paying to dismantle it for 20-30 years, and then having to pay again for the next 1 million years to guard the dismantled hunk of junk that cannot be used for any other purpose in that whole time. 

Would you ever buy a car again given those kinds of costs? Obviously not, but somehow the nuclear monopoly manages to sweet talk taxpayers out of money, and sweet talk politicians with campaign contribution 'bribes'. Their absolute control of mass media also helps to keep the 'bad' news of sky high costs, leaks, spills, accidents, negative health effects, global warming effects, and other negative aspects off the air and out of the minds of people. 

Another dirty secret about the nuclear industry is that most if not all nuclear power plants have run out of money (or spent the decommission funds) that they are supposed to have collected from their electricity consuming customers to 'decommission' themselves. 

By law, all nuclear power plants are supposed to collect this money while they are producing power, not after they are shut down. So who do you think will be on the hook to pay for the cleanup of the messes that all nuclear power plants create?

NUCLEAR PLANTS ARE SUING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND WINNING HUGE MONEY AWARDS BECAUSE TAXPAYERS HAVE NOT COME UP WITH A SOLUTION FOR DISPOSING OF NUCLEAR INDUSTRY RADIOACTIVE GARBAGE


The newest thing that nuclear plants are doing is suing the federal government for NOT providing a place to store their nuclear garbage. Instead of a private for profit industry coming up with ways to store their own nuclear waste, they passed a law saying it was the taxpayers who had to come up with it and PAY for it too. Now they are suing taxpayers and collecting, because taxpayers have not come up with a way to store their nuclear waste for this private for profit industry. 

Maybe it is time to sue our neighbors and demand that they pay for the disposal of the garbage we create in our homes? That would make about as much sense as this insanity of forcing taxpayers to pay for disposal of nuclear wastes.  When will taxpayers tire of this charade and pretense, plus insanity? 

NUCLEAR TRANSFERS ALL RISKS AND COSTS TO PUBLIC BUT KEEPS ALL PROFITS



Not only does the nuclear industry universally transfer all of the risk and cost of construction, cost overruns, cleanups, accidents and 'decommissioning' to taxpayers, they universally also keep all of the profits they make, plus they demand taxpayer subsidies just to keep operating. When they fail, again taxpayers pay through the nose to fund the cleanup and decommissioning, plus the compensation for the harm caused by the radiation. For example, the Chernobyl disaster bankrupted the Soviet Union, which then collapsed, and that led the wall coming down.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/02/07/nuclear-energy-renaissance-takes-another-blow-and.aspx

ONE NUCLEAR ACCIDENT BANKRUPTS A COUNTRY, NO NATION CAN AFFORD A RISK LIKE THAT


Gorbachev; Chernobyl Nuclear Accident Was Real Cause Of The Collapse of Soviet Union
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/12/gorbachev-chernobyl-nuclear-accident.html

In Japan, the Fukushima nuclear disaster will bankrupt that country. Japan now has the highest debt of any country in the world, exceeding even that of Greece, which is widely predicted to collapse financially and is dire straits. All costs for cleanup and dealing with this huge mega nuclear disaster involving 6 nuclear reactors and spent fuel pools, is being borne by the citizens of Japan. There will be huge health consequences as well, coming in about ten years, as vast areas of land are radiation contaminated, so the radiation is moving up the food chain and concentrating in the top of the food chain, Japanese citizens.

Fukushima Mega Nuclear Disaster Total Cost $1 - $10 TRILLION Dollars - Will Bankrupt Japan
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/06/fukushima-crisis-total-cost-up-to-10.html

Wouldn't you agree that it makes NO logical sense at all to risk bankrupting a whole country and by extension the whole world, just to generate steam for a few years?

NO SOLUTION FOR EXPENSIVE, POISONOUS RADIOACTIVE GARBAGE 

The nuclear waste from every nuclear power plant must be guarded for at least another 1 MILLION to BILLIONS of years, even AFTER THEY ARE ALL SHUT DOWN PERMANENTLY, contrary to the claims of nuclear apologists, who say that nuclear waste issues are not worth talking about. Who will pay for this?

Wouldn't you agree that heating water for 30 years, and then having to guard both the uranium tailing piles and the waste fuel from the power plant, recycling and concentrating facilities for 1 million years makes absolutely no economic or financial sense at all?

NOTHING BUT PROBLEMS: EXPERIMENTS AROUND STORING NUCLEAR WASTE


There is no long term waste solution for the nuclear industry. Further, the consequences of no solution cause further problems, by polluting our environment, with such practices such as the burning of nuclear wastes, and the dumping of nuclear reactors/wastes in the oceans of the world. We are also not going into the costs to health and the deaths caused by the nuclear industry accidents. 

During the time after a nuclear plant is shut down, when no power is being produced, it is costing rate payers or taxpayers money, as the above examples show.. 

A nuclear power plant, unlike any other kind of power plant, cannot just be shut off, and then lay off all of the workers. The toxic and radioactive waste is also a constant and never ending invitation to terrorists, who may use this leftover toxic mess to make a dirty bomb. 


ALL NUCLEAR FACILITIES VULNERABLE TO TERRORIST ATTACK



All nuclear power plants and the extremely radioactive and toxic waste must be guarded and protected from terrorists forever. How realistic is this plan? Are you willing to sign up to pay for the next MILLION years to guard some waste that only gave you hot water for 30 years?

What are the odds of an active nuclear power plant resisting a terrorist attack? Did you know that terrorists have already taken over a number of nuclear power plants? It is actually pretty easy to take a plant over, or to cause it to melt down, if one knows how to do it. Here is just ONE example of many.

We are lucky that terrorists are stupidly attacking only airplanes, because if they can turn off a nuke plant, (not hard to do) and just one spent fuel pool or nuclear reactor melts down, a city or town nearby with millions of people in it will become uninhabitable and have to be abandoned. 


NUCLEAR PLANT THREATENS ANY NATION WITH BANKRUPTCY IN CASE OF MELT DOWN



Whole nations become bankrupt when a nuclear plant melts down and through. Gorbachev announced several years after Chernobyl happened that the real cause of the collapse of Communism was the cost of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Chernobyl melting down bankrupted that whole nation.

"Another issue that has often been questioned in the plan is whether it is appropriate to define nuclear power as “cheap,” given that the Fukushima crisis has proved that costs to deal with a severe disaster could be colossal due to compensation payments, radiation cleanup work and the decommissioning of the stricken plant."

DOE NUCLEAR LOAN PROGRAM IS ABJECT FAILURE


rogerthat November 4, 2014 GreenWorld News, Views & Musings for our nuclear-free, carbon-free energy future - 35 clean energy organizations urge DOE to end nuclear loan program.

Today, 35 clean energy organizations from across the country submitted formal comments to the Department of Energy (DOE) urging it to end its nuclear loan program. The comments are in response to a DOE solicitation seeking to revive the failed program which, after seven years, has succeeded only in providing one loan to a nuclear project (the Vogtle reactors in Georgia) whose executives publicly said they didn’t need it and offering a loan to another project (Calvert Cliffs-3 in Maryland) for which it would have been illegal for its principal to receive it.

NUCLEAR FUEL COST CYCLE IS ACTUALLY NEGATIVE 

If we look at the whole fuel cycle and the costs to guard against terrorists using it, the total energy to profit ratio of nuclear power stations, is actually net-NEGATIVE. It is just a question of how much nuclear power goes into the red, not if it is a money losing proposition. 

Via freebywill November 6, 2014 One example of how un-green nucliar power is . . . .a recent post claiming " Nuclear is a (virtually) renewable energy source that produces no carbon emissions. "

The Reality

"The primary mode of enrichment was the gaseous diffusion of uranium hexaflouride to separate the lighter fissile isotope, U-235, from the heavier non-fissile isotope, U-238. The plant initially produced material for the U.S. nuclear weapons program. In the mid-1960s, the plant converted to fuel production for commercial nuclear power plants. Portsmouth took material from Paducah that was enriched to 2.75% U-235 and further enriched it to approximately 4% and 5%

To support operations, the AEC entered into the largest contract for a single customer in the history of the electrical utility industry for power at that time. Power usage was equal to the all-time high voltage requirements in the United States, more than 2,000 megawatts daily – 18 billion kilowatt hours yearly.

Two large (COAL FIRED) steam electric generating stations were built to supply power at Clifty Creek in Madison, Indiana and Kyger Creek in Gallipolis, Ohio.

The power plants used 7.5 million tons of coal annually to support operations."
The above energy used to process uranium fuel is not included in the nuclear fuel cycle when pro nuclear apologists talk about how 'clean' and 'green' and 'carbon free' nuclear power is. They do not include the energy used to mine, crush and refine the ore either.

Nor do they include the energy used to transport waste.

Nor do they include energy used to cool spent fuel or to transport and vitrify it in nuclear waste facilities.

Nor do they include the energy it takes to decommission a nuclear plant or clean up these polluted Super Fund sites when they done and 'let' the public pay to clean up the mess.

Assuming that everything goes according to plan, the amount of energy society expends overall to construct, fuel, and run a nuclear power station and then decommission it and safely store the long term radioactive wastes produced, is FAR GREATER than the total electrical output of a nuclear power station during its operating lifespan.

The following graph shows that the whole fuel cycle loses almost 3 times more energy than it delivers.

DELIVERED Nuclear Energy 2.19 QBtu
ELECTRIC ENERGY LOSS 6.20 QBtu

Ramaswami Kumar wrote this nuclear fuel cycle audit where he states that the whole nuclear energy fuel cycle consumes 500% more energy than it delivers. 
http://energyauditofnuclearfuelcycles.blogspot.in/

Via VanneV October 27, 2014 Nuclear Power's Infinite Liability for All Time
Monday, April 12, 2010 © 2011 Ramaswami Ashok Kumar
“That nuclear power is desperately required for meeting energy needs is not scientifically supportable. That leaves out only one dangerous posture-deterrence or attack ignoring consequences. My arguments on nuclear liability in this regard bring out these dangers:In a programme of building nuclear power plants the energy input to construction per year is 0.67 times the energy output of the plant per year. After the commissioning of the plant after 8 years, if we want to construct 2 nuclear plants, the energy output to construction is 1.33 times the nuclear electricity output from the commissioned plant per year!

From such reasoning it has been found that there is never any net energy available to society in any year during the construction phase of a nuclear power programme. Thus, if nuclear is to supply any electricity net to society it is just impossible in this power hungry proud world. Thus nukes are duds do not have any utilitarian value. And the risks mount because of the insatiable need for energy by the nuke industry and the society. Please avoid this suicidal path because it leads to other energy supply systems to be constructed on a large scale to meet the demands of the nuke industry with catastrophic consequences for mother earth, like earthquakes,tsunamis and nuke meltdowns. Right now even during normal operations, the 350 nuclear reactors around the world are causing the premature deaths equivalent to twenty Bhopals or more every year (following JW Gofman)….”

Via VanneV October 14, 2014  Manmade Nuclear Holocaust

“…Every Nuclear Power Station Produced Kilowatt Hour = 1 kW—uses up to 10 kW diesel oil (mining, enrichment, infrastructure, storage, recycling)
“From every Nuke 4kW created, 3kW is pumped into the sea as waste…then some.
http://www.slideshare.net/syottovasikka/nuclear-holocaust

rogerthat March 12, 2015 Statement to the Nuclear Energy in the UK conference – March 2015.
Posted Sun, 08/03/2015 by Martyn Lowe

Kick Nuclear Statement to the Nuclear energy in the UK: priorities for new build, funding and developing the supply chain conference, which was held on tuesday 3rd March 2015 at the Royal Society.

'Nuclear Energy in the UK' conference, March 2015.

We are here today at your nuclear industry conference to again try to bring a little realism to your deliberations. Wind, wave and solar are cheaper, cleaner, lower carbon and therefore loved more by everyone outside the nuclear power industry, and we are here to urge you to stop flogging your nuke horse, because it is dead.

Solar power costs have dropped 99% since 1977, 60% since 2011. And that decrease is not slowing down. On-shore wind has now dropped well below the strike price offered to the doomed Hinkley Point power station, and off-shore wind is getting close.

In last week's UK renewable energy auction, both on-shore wind and solar came in at around £80 MWh, cheaper than the £92.50 MWh offered to Hinkley Point nuclear power station. And Hinkley's subsidy is linked to inflation for 35 years, by which time it will be worth around £320 MWh, according to calculations by the very-unimpressed Austrian government, who have taken the whole subsidy to court.

The truth is that nowhere, ever, has your industry built a nuclear reactor without a huge slab of government money. And if the true costs of both insuring against meltdown and disposing of the waste and the plant when eventually retired were included, your industry would be shown to be several times more expensive that the alternatives.

If the cost of insurance, currently paid by government as another hidden subsidy, were included, the strike price of nuclear would rise to over £200 MWh.

And the unreliability of nuclear power carries its own costs, as the National Grid has to have 1,800 MW of backup power on standby for when one of the 1,600 MW Hinkley reactors suddenly goes down, due to a swarm of jellyfish, (as in Torness recently), or other engineering problem.

And these costs are spread across all sources, which means that wind and solar have to pay these costs so as to keep down the apparent cost of nuclear.

And why cling to an industry that has no plan for dealing with its own waste?

The WIPP plant in New Mexico is a dedicated geological disposal facility built to hold waste for 10,000 years. It lasted 15 years before suffering a series of fires and explosions in barrels holding waste, caused by mixing of nitrate salts, lead gloves, cellulose based kitty litter, and improper (ie. fraudulent) labeling of contents.

The explosions led to plutonium and other radioactive substances being 'puffed' up out of the ground, and drifting off to the nearest centre of human population, Carlsbad. Of course, nuclear industry supporters immediately chorused that the quantities were safe, were insignificant.

But they always do, in spite of numerous scientific studies showing that there is no safe, lower limit of radiation exposure.

We don't understand how the nuclear industry can keep doing this to it's own children; have they convinced themselves that 'a little radiation is good for you'? Swallowed their own propaganda on 'hormesis'?

Of course, the real killer for your industry is the fact, the fact, that you have a meltdown every seven years.

Windscale, Three Mile Island, Tschernobyl, now triple Fukushimas; yet your industry continues to demand that we trust you to do better in the future, and that you're really sorry and will try and avoid the corner-cutting, risk-taking, regulatory capture and bad practices that led to the last meltdown.

Health and Safety by trial and error, where you get to keep the profits and we get to keep the cancer.

If you had manfully fronted your disaster at Fukushima and actually admitted it was a catastrophe and that it would take serious money to deal with, ($500 billion), then you might have retained some respect for your scientific honesty and technological competence.

But the main focus after Fukushima has only been restarting Japan's other 48 nuclear plants, and so the population have been told to absorb in place, eat Fukushima food to help the zone recover, smile a lot and have a positive attitude while half the medical community have accepted instructions to calm patient worries by denying any link to radiation for their complaints. While 400 tons of radioactive water a day continue to gush into the Pacific. 'It's OK, the Pacific is quite large', your industry argues, having sworn blind since the 50's that you would never unleash any radionuclides into the environment.

So use your technical knowledge of atoms and electrons to join us in solving the world's energy needs in a safe, sustainable way, as urged by the Prime Minister of Japan during the Fukushima meltdowns, Mr Kan. He called nuclear 'an unsafe and expensive technology that is not compatible with life on this planet.'


INDUSTRY FULL OF COST OVER RUNS, SHUT DOWNS, ACCIDENTS


For details on the shutdowns, abortions, and cost-over-runs of nuclear projects in the US and worldwide, see the Beyond Nuclear Retreat web page;

Karl Grossman makes the point that the nuclear industry is full of psychopaths that knew that nuclear power was and still is far more dangerous, more costly and more toxic, than any other form of energy generation, but they cover up the truth and lie to the public about it. How does it feel to be lied to? 

Read Karl Grossman's book; Cover Up: What You are Not Supposed to Know About Nuclear Power. It is available here for free;

Nuclear power is not only risky from a public health and safety perspective; it always has been financially risky as well. According to DOE’s own study, the first 75 reactors in the U.S. were built with an average cost overrun of 207%–or more than three times their original expected cost. Those reactors that came later had even higher cost overruns.

NUCLEAR ENERGY PLANTS CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING

The nuclear industry claims to be 'green' but the opposite is actually the truth. The actual global warming gases given off by all nuclear plants are completely ignored and denied. Only the construction is included in the calculations comparing nuclear to everything else, but that is the smallest part of the nuclear reactors global warming disastrous equation. Nuclear power is actually the WORST global warming mega disaster, not the least. To find out more, click on the links and find out for yourself. You won't hear this on the mass media news... ever. 

NUCLEAR POWER IS ACTUALLY MORE DAMAGING AND GLOBAL WARMING THAN CARBON INDUSTRY IS, BUT THEY HAVE BEEN HIDING THIS FOR MANY GENERATIONS


Krypton gas is only coming from nuclear reactors as a man made radioactive gas element, and it can be shown how Krypton affects the weather in negative ways. For more details about how Krypton gas affects the weather, click on the following links at end of this article...

Nuclear power plants release up to 9 times more CO2 than Solar, Water, or Wind Power


NUCLEAR POWER THREATENS ALL LIFE ON THE PLANET THROUGH GENOMIC INSTABILITY AND GENETIC DNA DAMAGE

GOM April 27, 2016  It’s Not Just Cancer! Radiation, Genomic Instability and Heritable Genetic Damage by CHRIS BUSBY
Those who fear the effects of radiation always focus on cancer. But the most frightening and serious consequences of radiation are genetic.

Cancer is just one small bleak reflection, a flash of cold light from a facet of the iceberg of genetic damage to life on Earth constructed from human folly, power-lust and stupidity.

Cancer is a genetic disease expressed at the cellular level. But genetic effects are transmitted across the generations.

It was Herman Joseph Muller, an American scientist, who discovered the most serious effects of ionizing radiation – hereditary defects in the descendants of exposed parents – in the 1920s.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/18/ts-not-just-cancer-radiation-genomic-instability-and-heritable-genetic-damage/

GREEN RENEWABLE ENERGY SOLUTIONS ARE CHEAPER AND SUSTAINABLE 


The answers are all there. Humanity does not need dangerous, toxic, and deadly waste sitting around for a million years. The renewable energy market is cheap and ready to go now. Oil will only get more expensive from here and cause crippling climate change if we keep using it. The same thing applies for coal.. it emits carbon and toxic by products that humanity cannot afford anymore. Natural gas also increases Co2 levels, which humanity cannot afford anymore. Humanity need to switch to zero carbon energy sources as FAST as possible.

According to the IAEA, forecasts of "levelized cost of new generation resources to be put online many years from now will be;

ENERGY SOURCE                   COST PER Mwh


Natural Gas                                       67.5$/Mwh

Wind                                                 86.6$/Mwh


Advanced Nuclear                          108.4$/Mwh

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm

“Nuclear Power is very expensive.”
https://class.coursera.org/nuclearscience-001/forum/thread?thread_id=401

Climate change concerns, coupled with high oil prices, peak oil, and increasing government support, are driving increasing renewable energy legislation, incentives and commercialization.[12] New government spending, regulation and policies helped the industry weather the global financial crisis better than many other sectors.[13]

According to a 2011 projection by the International Energy Agency, solar power generators may produce most of the world’s electricity within 50 years, dramatically reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases that harm the environment.[14]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy


NEWEST TRICK IS TO BLOCK ALL RENEWABLES FROM HOOKING UP TO GRID, FORCING PEOPLE TO USE EXPENSIVE NUCLEAR POWER

It is hard to believe, but the carbon and nuclear industries are so threatened by renewable energies that they are blocking them from hooking up to the electric grid, just so they can survive. They know that if renewable energy sources are allowed to hook into the grid, that nuclear and carbon sources are dead enders and will be relegated to the trash heap of history. The answer is to keep anyone else from supplying clean energy, and force consumers to stay with dirty, expensive carbon and nuclear fuel sources. 

stock October 17, 2014 "NA (Nukeasshats) are now attacking Japan….blocking all solar from getting on the grid, and pushing hard for nuke restarts.

They need your enslavement. Time to fight."

DOUBLING OF NUCLEAR POWER GLOBALLY WOULD REQUIRE BUILDING A YUCCA MOUNTAIN FACILITY EVERY 3 TO 4 YEARS, AT HUGE COST


VanneV December 3, 2014  “…As noted in Part One of this series, doubling the world's current nuclear energy output would reduce global carbon emissions by just one-seventh of the amount required to avoid the worst impacts of global warming. Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology point out that achieving even this inadequate result would require siting a permanent repository the size of Yucca Mountain every three to four years to deal with the additional waste-an enormous and expensive challenge. Given nuclear power's drawbacks, and the growth and promise of clean, lower cost, less dangerous alternatives, the case for nuclear power wobbles badly. Stripped of the pretext that nuclear power is the answer to climate change, the case essentially collapses.”

SUMMARY


Cisco February 8, 2015 "Oil, gas, coal and nuclear have exponentially higher per kilowatt costs than what is published/calculated by the shills who exclude the costs of environmental destruction and the health consequences of their dirty life cycles, from extraction to energy production and their waste streams.

The financial and biological/health costs from oil spills (wells, pipelines, refining, tankers, oil trains, et al); flaring off methane; oceans, lakes, rivers, aquifer, forest and crop destruction; coal ash from power generation; air pollution from hydrocarbons and nuclear are never factored into the real costs of these life sickening and destroying industries.

If life cycle production costs were factored in, there would be no contest as what is the most economical form of energy production. In fact, green energy would look dirt cheap in comparison; but, power and greed trumps the truth, and so, we are fleeced and fu#ked."

WHAT YOU CAN DO


Share this article by copying and pasting the following title and link into Facebook and Twitter. Thanks for sharing.

Don't worry, be happy. Listen to the music and feel good.

Three Little Birds | Playing For Change | Song Around the World

VOTE! 

Vote only for people who are not rich, and who do not take corporate money.

WHAT YOU CAN DO; RESEARCH THE DARK SIDE OF THE NUCLEAR MONOPOLY

A Green Road Journal has the largest, most organized, deepest set of articles, videos and pictures exposing the dark side of the nuclear monopoly in the world.

Zero Nuclear Weapons Peace And Justice Project; First Strike Policy, Ban Nuclear Bombs, DU, Down Winders, Acute Radiation Sickness, Nuclear War, Dirty Bombs, Bomb Shelters

Zero Rads In Children And Adults Eco Justice Project - Negative Effects Of Chronic, Cumulative Man Made Radiation Exposure

Zero Rads Extraction Eco Justice Project; Uranium Mining, Enrichment, Nuclear Fuel Chain, Open Air Testing, Fracking

Zero Internal Rads Eco Justice Project; Negative Effects Of Internal Radiation Exposure, Risk Models, Hormesis, Radiophobia, Radiation Monitoring Networks

Making Invisible Heavy Metal Radioactive Poison Visible Eco Justice Project; Ionizing Heavy Metal Poisonous Radiation In Food/Water/Products, Geiger Counters, Dosimeters, Radiation Readings, Test Labs, Conversions, Global Detector Network

Zero Harm To Animals, Insects, Birds And Plants Eco Justice Project; Negative Effects Of Chronic, Cumulative Man Made Heavy Metal Radioactive Poisons In Animals, Insects, Birds And Plants

Zero Nuclear Power Plant Threat Eco Justice Project; Accidents, Recycling Nuclear Fuel, Movie Reviews, Next Generation Nuclear Plants, Terrorists

Radiation Research, Education, Database Eco Justice Project; Individual Radioactive Elements/Isotopes, USA Radiation, Radiation Exposure Prevention, Reversal, Chelation

Eco Justice Art - Artists As Activists; Art, Aging, Poetry, Lyrics And Lawsuits Project; Lawsuits, Aging Nuclear Reactors, Recertification, Music, Lyrics, Poetry

Zero Rad Waste Eco Justice Project; Long Term Storage Of Nuclear Waste, Decommissioning, Ocean Dumping, Incineration, Decontamination, Water Contamination, Dry Cask Storage


WHAT YOU CAN DO; ENDORSE, LEARN, TRANSFORM, DONATE, SHARE, SUPPORT, SPONSOR, CONNECT, COMMENT, AND/OR COLLABORATE

DONATE

Please help AGRP get this news out... thanks for your generous and very appreciated support! What you support grows and expands. What you withhold support from shrinks, shrivels and disappears. Even .50 cents per month is a great help. What is teaching the science of sustainable health worth?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Donate To A Green Road Project; Help Dr. Goodheart Teach How To Make A Positive Difference For Seven Future Generations Of Children, Animals, Plants And The Planet

TRANSLATE

Click to Translate; 60 languages - German, French, Russian, Spanish

JOIN THE NETWORK OF OTHER ACTIVISTS; PLUG INTO AGRP


* Join the AGR Network. Forward this or any other article by clicking on the social media facebook, google plus and/or twitter buttons below any AGRP article. The first step for activists is to bring awareness of an issue to the public, by being informed yourself. Which news and information network do you prefer to plug into and network with?








 Email AGRP

RSS Feed

Subscribe to; A Green Road Project Magazine, monthly issues
It is easy to join the AGRP network, and your email will never be rented, sold or shared.

Subscribe/sign up, give feedback, or offer news tips or story ideas by sending an email to agreenroad@gmail.com . Subscribe by typing the word subscribe in the subject line.

COPYRIGHT

Wayne Dyer - What You Think, You Become (Wayne Dyer Meditation)

"Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, "ALLOWANCES ARE MADE FOR FAIR USE" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute, that otherwise might be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use." For more info go to:www.lawcornel.edu/uscode.

Copyright protected material on this website is used in accordance with 'Fair Use', for the purpose of study, review or critical analysis, and will be removed at the request of the copyright owner(s). Please read Notice and Procedure for Making Claims of Copyright Infringement.

WHAT YOU CAN DO: SHARE THIS ARTICLE

A Green Road; Teaching the Science of Sustainable Health. 

Keep asking - what works for 7 future generations without causing harm? 

Support AGR and share this article via by copying and pasting title and url into;

Website and contact page

Index, Table Of Contents

End


John Quiggan; Nuclear Power Is TOO EXPENSIVE; Dirty, Dangerous, Global Warming And Toxic, Even More So AFTER Decommissioning Plus Long Term Storage/Security Costs Are Included - Nuclear Energy Is Totally Unreliable And Takes More Energy Than It Produces Long Term
https://www.agreenroadjournal.com/2016/04/john-quiggan-nuclear-power-is-too.html

Reactions:
Share this post: