 |
|
|
| | | published Monday, October 20, 2008 | 1 Views :: 0 Comments |
Judith Mohling,
Friday, October 17, 2008
Is a revival of nuclear power an answer? No, for many reasons. Here are two of them.
Nuclear power is not democratic. The entire nuclear cycle, from uranium mining, to nuclear power or weapons production damages the health of communities. It's all lethal.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Thursday, October 16, 2008 | 1028 Views :: 1 Comments |
The Department of Energyís (DOE) proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), a program to restart nuclear waste reprocessing in the United States, poses a threat to local communities and to global security. Instead of pursuing this environmentally destructive, dangerous, and exorbitantly expensive GNEP program, DOE should store nuclear waste at reactor sites and safeguard it from terrorist attack.
The analysis provided in the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) is appallingly inadequate. Despite its legal mandate to analyze the full socio-economic and environmental impacts of GNEP, this document this PEIS does not include a complete life cycle cost analysis, fully addressing environmental or nonproliferation impacts. Furthermore, it inadequately addresses the full extent of health impacts from reprocessing.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Thursday, October 16, 2008 | 906 Views :: 0 Comments | |
| | | published Wednesday, October 15, 2008 | 981 Views :: 0 Comments |
Press Release Template for Organizations to use regarding Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
____________________ opposes the reprocessing of nuclear waste under the Bush administration’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), as recommended by the recent Department of Energy (DOE) report, entitled Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement [PEIS] for Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.
Download Document in Word: GNEP Template for Press Release.doc
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Wednesday, October 08, 2008 | 807 Views :: 0 Comments |
Separating plutonium under GNEP would increase the production and stockpiles of nuclear weapons usable materials. Spent fuel that has not been reprocessed is considered “self protecting” because it is highly radioactive. Separated plutonium is a fine powder, and approximately 18 lbs. are required to make a bomb.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Wednesday, October 08, 2008 | 931 Views :: 0 Comments |
Reprocessing has already failed in the United States: West Valley, New York is the site of the only commercial reprocessing plant that operated in the United States. From 1966 to 1972, West Valley ran at 18% capacity and accumulated 600,000 gallons of high-level waste onsite. The cleanup of West Valley will cost more than $5 billion.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Wednesday, October 08, 2008 | 1076 Views :: 0 Comments |
Although the Department of Energy (DOE) has not provided a life-cycle cost estimate for GNEP, the National Academy of Sciences estimated in 1996 that a reprocessing project like GNEP could cost more than $500 billion. Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office has stated that "Reprocessing of U.S. spent fuel would cost 25 percent more than plans for direct disposal" in a permanent repository. Under the current plan for GNEP, the taxpayer and rate-payers, not the nuclear power industry, would bear this cost.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Thursday, September 25, 2008 | 528 Views :: 0 Comments |
On September 13th, Mycle Schneider, International Consultant on Energy and Nuclear Policy, gave a fascinating presentation on the Status and Trends of the World Nuclear Industry. To see Mycle's text analysis published in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, click here. To see Mycle's powerpoint presentation
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Saturday, April 12, 2008 | 0 Views :: 0 Comments |
In spite of a decade of work on its program to eliminate surplus weapons plutonium, not a single gram has been disposed by the Department of Energy (DOE). By any standard, the program is a failure. Left unchanged, it will continue to suffer from chronic bad management, escalating costs, and technical uncertainties. A better alternative is for Congress and a new administration to put the disposition program onto the safer and less costly vitrification track.
Download PDF: ANA MOX final.pdf
|
| read more.. |
|
|
 |
|