Summary
Huh? We're not sure how much nukes can reduce global warming, but we should spend billions more taxpayer dollars to subsidize nukes? This is no basis for national policy. Between 1948 and 1998, civilian nuclear power received at least $77 billion dollars of federal subsidies (in constant 2005 dollars). The insurance industry still won't touch nuclear power with a ten-foot pole so Congress has to limit the industry's liability by law - a huge subsidy to the nuclear power corporations. Wall Street won't touch it either without huge additional federal guarantees and subsidies. This is a technology that falls on its face unless Uncle Sam provides a permanent crutch.
The time is now for all of us to get behind wind and solar power as solutions to our energy challenges. Together they constitute a highly desirable and entirely achievable precautionary energy program. A study published in Science magazine (June 24, 2005) concluded that hydrogen-fuel-cell-automobiles would be cheaper to run than today's gasoline-powered vehicles. Conservation is the cheapest and least polluting option of all, and it is available in abundance right now. Conservation, wind, photovoltaics, hydrogen storage, plus a modicum of ethanol and methanol can provide a bridge to even greener sources of energy. It's time to take a principled stand for conservation, wind, and other solar options. They are good for the planet, good for people, good for local control, good for "local living economies," and good for self-determination.See the full content of this document
Extract
Time to Dust Off That 'No Nukes!' Button
It's time to dust off your "No Nukes!" button - or grab that old one out of your Mom's top bureau drawer. You may need it soon.
The "powers that be" have begun a new campaign to convince us that we must have dozens or hundreds - worldwide, thousands - of new nuclear power plants...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
