Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Fresno Mayor Wants to Build Nuclear Power Plant in My Backyard
There is a proposal to build a nuclear power plant in Fresno. The mayor of Fresno suggested that my backyard might be a good location to build this 1,600 megawatt reactor. Read more below.
Fresno Mayor Wants to Build Nuclear Power Plant in My Backyard
By Mike Rhodes
A proposal to build a nuclear power plant, next to the waste water treatment facility west of downtown Fresno, has been proposed by a group of businessmen in Fresno. Alan Autry, the mayor of Fresno, supports the proposal saying that it will reduce electricity costs by two thirds and bring thousands of jobs to Fresno.
The proposal to build a 1,600-megawatt nuclear reactor is estimated to cost $4 billion. In an exchange earlier this month (see http://www.fresnobeehive.com/opinion/mayorblog2006/ ) with the mayor, I wrote “Mayor, there was a proposal made last week to the Fresno City Council to build a nuclear power plant in Fresno. Do you think this proposal should be seriously considered? Do you support building a nuclear power facility in this community? If you support the idea of a nuclear power plant, do you think it should be located near the bluffs in north Fresno or on the Westside?”
Mayor Autry replied: “Mike, I believe nuclear power holds great promise for the entire San Joaquin Valley. We must find a way to become energy self-sufficient. High energy costs are crippling households throughout the Valley. The nuclear power plant being discussed is very small. The size being discussed, which is small enough to operate a nuclear submarine, could provide enough power for the entire city of Fresno. As for the Bluffs or Westside, it makes no difference to me since it is the safest source of energy around. Mike, by the way, how big is your back yard?”
According to Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_plant ) a 1,600 MW nuclear power plant, if built today, would be the largest plant in the world. The mayor wants to put that plant in my backyard????!!!!????
If a nuclear plant does get built in Fresno it will produce a waste material that will have to be stored for thousands of years. The problem of nuclear waste storage is so serious that there is a moratorium banning the building of nuclear power plants in California until there is a solution to how to dispose of the spent fuel. Out of six nuclear power plants in California, four have been decommissioned because of high operating costs and safety concerns.
The Fresno Nuclear Energy Group LLC, which consists of several local businessmen (with no experience in the nuclear industry), wants to build this plant far away from the upscale neighborhoods of north Fresno. The poor residents of west Fresno will be the beneficiaries of all the gifts the nuclear industry has to offer.
One gift that is sure to please neighbors of this power plant is the constant threat of a nuclear disaster. Remember Chernobyl and Three Mile Island? The radiation from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster resulted in the evacuation of 336,000 people and the contamination of all nearby farmland. A similar disaster here would end agricultural production in this valley for centuries.
The group proposing to build this nuclear power plant has no intention of paying for it themselves. They want to rely on massive government subsidies to finance this project. So much for the free market system. If nuclear energy is such a good idea, why aren’t Wall Street investors lining up to underwrite the endeavor? The answer is simple - because they know you can pour billions of dollars into one of these power plants and in less than a day it could all melt down. Not only that, they could be on the hook for billions of dollars in clean up expenses. That is why private industry will not finance this dinosaur. The group that is promoting nuclear energy in Fresno wants you and me to take on the financial liability of their project, the risk of turning the Central Valley into a wasteland, and the death of our families, so they can become wealthy. That does not sound like a fair trade to me.
This proposed nuclear power plant will never be built in Fresno. What will happen if Fresno Nuclear Energy Group LLC got a green light to move forward on this project is that millions of our tax dollars will be given to these larger than life welfare recipients who feed at the public trough. In the end, no nuclear power plant would be built, but those involved will have received huge salaries and bonuses, paid for by you and me. It is enough to make a pirate blush.
What can we do about this outrageous proposal that has the potential to destroy our valley, enrich a couple of corporate kingpins, and throw our tax dollars down a rat hole? We must speak out against this boondoggle. We also need to present the alternative, because there is truth to the argument that we need to reduce global warming and provide for the energy needs of the future. The alternative to nuclear is obvious - we need to develop solar, wind and other alternative sources of energy. Fresno’s political leadership needs to focus on urban planning that restricts urban sprawl, supports public transportation, and facilitates the creation of alternative energy initiatives. In addition, each of us has the responsibility to do our part by conserving energy, creating a more green friendly environment, and electing politicians that share this vision.
###
By Mike Rhodes
A proposal to build a nuclear power plant, next to the waste water treatment facility west of downtown Fresno, has been proposed by a group of businessmen in Fresno. Alan Autry, the mayor of Fresno, supports the proposal saying that it will reduce electricity costs by two thirds and bring thousands of jobs to Fresno.
The proposal to build a 1,600-megawatt nuclear reactor is estimated to cost $4 billion. In an exchange earlier this month (see http://www.fresnobeehive.com/opinion/mayorblog2006/ ) with the mayor, I wrote “Mayor, there was a proposal made last week to the Fresno City Council to build a nuclear power plant in Fresno. Do you think this proposal should be seriously considered? Do you support building a nuclear power facility in this community? If you support the idea of a nuclear power plant, do you think it should be located near the bluffs in north Fresno or on the Westside?”
Mayor Autry replied: “Mike, I believe nuclear power holds great promise for the entire San Joaquin Valley. We must find a way to become energy self-sufficient. High energy costs are crippling households throughout the Valley. The nuclear power plant being discussed is very small. The size being discussed, which is small enough to operate a nuclear submarine, could provide enough power for the entire city of Fresno. As for the Bluffs or Westside, it makes no difference to me since it is the safest source of energy around. Mike, by the way, how big is your back yard?”
According to Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_plant ) a 1,600 MW nuclear power plant, if built today, would be the largest plant in the world. The mayor wants to put that plant in my backyard????!!!!????
If a nuclear plant does get built in Fresno it will produce a waste material that will have to be stored for thousands of years. The problem of nuclear waste storage is so serious that there is a moratorium banning the building of nuclear power plants in California until there is a solution to how to dispose of the spent fuel. Out of six nuclear power plants in California, four have been decommissioned because of high operating costs and safety concerns.
The Fresno Nuclear Energy Group LLC, which consists of several local businessmen (with no experience in the nuclear industry), wants to build this plant far away from the upscale neighborhoods of north Fresno. The poor residents of west Fresno will be the beneficiaries of all the gifts the nuclear industry has to offer.
One gift that is sure to please neighbors of this power plant is the constant threat of a nuclear disaster. Remember Chernobyl and Three Mile Island? The radiation from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster resulted in the evacuation of 336,000 people and the contamination of all nearby farmland. A similar disaster here would end agricultural production in this valley for centuries.
The group proposing to build this nuclear power plant has no intention of paying for it themselves. They want to rely on massive government subsidies to finance this project. So much for the free market system. If nuclear energy is such a good idea, why aren’t Wall Street investors lining up to underwrite the endeavor? The answer is simple - because they know you can pour billions of dollars into one of these power plants and in less than a day it could all melt down. Not only that, they could be on the hook for billions of dollars in clean up expenses. That is why private industry will not finance this dinosaur. The group that is promoting nuclear energy in Fresno wants you and me to take on the financial liability of their project, the risk of turning the Central Valley into a wasteland, and the death of our families, so they can become wealthy. That does not sound like a fair trade to me.
This proposed nuclear power plant will never be built in Fresno. What will happen if Fresno Nuclear Energy Group LLC got a green light to move forward on this project is that millions of our tax dollars will be given to these larger than life welfare recipients who feed at the public trough. In the end, no nuclear power plant would be built, but those involved will have received huge salaries and bonuses, paid for by you and me. It is enough to make a pirate blush.
What can we do about this outrageous proposal that has the potential to destroy our valley, enrich a couple of corporate kingpins, and throw our tax dollars down a rat hole? We must speak out against this boondoggle. We also need to present the alternative, because there is truth to the argument that we need to reduce global warming and provide for the energy needs of the future. The alternative to nuclear is obvious - we need to develop solar, wind and other alternative sources of energy. Fresno’s political leadership needs to focus on urban planning that restricts urban sprawl, supports public transportation, and facilitates the creation of alternative energy initiatives. In addition, each of us has the responsibility to do our part by conserving energy, creating a more green friendly environment, and electing politicians that share this vision.
###
For more information:
http://www.fresnoalliance.com/home
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Thanks for the article.
Two good sources for info to shut down the nukes and stop new ones:
Citizens Awareness Network
http://www.nukebusters.org
Nuclear Information Resource Center
http://www.nirs.org/alternatives/alternativeshome.htm
Two good sources for info to shut down the nukes and stop new ones:
Citizens Awareness Network
http://www.nukebusters.org
Nuclear Information Resource Center
http://www.nirs.org/alternatives/alternativeshome.htm
We should send letter to them, the editors, our Federal Politicans.
How can they risk not only the lives in the Central Valley, but also the agriculture.
thanks for this article.
How can they risk not only the lives in the Central Valley, but also the agriculture.
thanks for this article.
Is Fresno Nuclear Energy Group LLC members also members of People's Church ?
Are the local Unions dumb enough to support this ?
Are the local Unions dumb enough to support this ?
The article below, which was printed in The Fresno Bee about two weeks ago, provides some details about the businessmen who are promoting this project. John Hutson, the president and CEO of the corporation working on this project, came out of organized labor. He was the president of the Building and Construction Trades Council. The BCTC is a coalition of unions in the Building and Construction trades.
//////////////////////
Nuclear plant idea takes hold
Group says it will seek power facility for Fresno.
By Jeff St. John / The Fresno Bee
12/14/06 04:13:21
A group of Fresno businessmen announced Wednesday that they have formed a corporation and signed a letter of intent with a power-plant developer to explore plans for a nuclear reactor in Fresno.
But with a California law banning new nuclear plants until the federal government comes up with a plan for safely disposing of spent fuel — and with federal plans for such disposal in limbo — the Fresno group's efforts could well be in vain, anti-nuclear groups said.
Still, the backers of Fresno Nuclear Energy Group LLC are optimistic, noting that new federal incentives for nuclear plants and California's growing need for electricity sources that don't emit greenhouse gases could improve their prospects.
"We're not rushing," said John Hutson, president and chief executive of the new corporation. As chairman of the Fresno Utility Commission, Hutson first floated the idea of a Fresno nuclear plant in August. "We're convinced this will work," he said.
Hutson cited the economic benefits a nuclear plant could bring to the central San Joaquin Valley — thousands of high-paying jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenues — as well as the role it could play in meeting California's growing demand for electricity.
The plan would be to manage the plant under a public-private partnership, he said, though he added that the details on how such a partnership would be structured is not yet clear.
The 2005 Energy Bill passed by Congress includes federal loan guarantees for up to 80% of the cost of construction, which would make finding financing for the project much easier, he said. Hutson acknowledged the state's moratorium on nuclear power plant construction is an obstacle, but said advances in nuclear fuel recycling, or a resolution by the federal government on storage of spent fuel, could allow the plan to go forward.
"The moratorium was written 25 years ago," he said. "I think the technology has changed, and I think the subject needs to be revisited."
The plan is to build a $4 billion, 1,600-megawatt nuclear reactor that would be cooled with water from the city's waste-water treatment plant west of downtown, Hutson said. His group has signed a letter of intent with UniStar Nuclear Development LLC, a subsidiary of Baltimore-based Constellation Energy, to design, build and operate the plant.
Current plans call for an "evolutionary power reactor," a new-generation pressure water reactor design identical to one UniStar is now building in Finland in partnership with the French nuclear power company Areva, he said.
Hutson said the design is much safer than the two nuclear plants now operating in California, at Diablo Canyon and at San Onofre. But, he said, even those older nuclear plants have strong safety records when compared to other industries.
"We want to make sure, first of all, that it's safe," he said. "It appears that it is at this point." The other members of Fresno Nuclear Energy Group include Al Smith, president and chief executive of the Fresno Chamber of Commerce; Dick Caglia, a prominent Fresno businessman; Richard Egan, owner of Central Supply Co. and other businesses in Fresno; Bob Smittcamp, president and chief executive officer of Fresno-based beverage and frozen and canned fruit company Lyons Magnus; and Tom McClean, a Bay Area-based contractor and consultant.
Fresno Nuclear Energy Group has access to about $10 million, the amount likely to be required for the multiyear process of seeking construction and operation licensing from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Hutson said.
"The federal government says they will not take longer to decide on a license than it takes to build it, and that means less than four years," he said. With four years to license and four years to build it, that's at least eight years before the plant could possibly be built, he said.
Fresno Mayor Alan Autry, responding to questions during an online chat Wednesday on http://www.fresnobee.com, strongly backed the idea.
"I believe nuclear power holds great promise for the entire San Joaquin Valley," Autry wrote. "We must find a way to become energy self-sufficient."
But skeptics of Fresno Nuclear Energy Group's proposal said they doubted the plant would ever be built — and the key obstacle, they said, is the state's moratorium.
"I think the odds are close to zero that the moratorium will be lifted, and for good reason," said Carl Zichella, regional staff director for the Sierra Club in Sacramento. "There are so many other things we can do that are so much smarter than wasting time on nuclear power."
The Sierra Club would like to see investments instead in alternative energy sources like solar and wind power, as well as renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel.
But Per Peterson, a professor of nuclear engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, said that he believed that the increasing recognition by politicians of the threat of human-caused global warming could change opinions about nuclear power.
"Today, compared to the 1970s, we know that carbon emissions are a major problem that can have potentially very large environmental consequences," he said. Problems associated with "the disposal of waste from nuclear plants are extremely small, compared to what we're worrying about from carbon emissions."
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which calls for the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, could add to pressure on state government to reconsider the moratorium, he said.
But David Weisman, outreach coordinator for the nuclear plant watchdog group Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility in San Luis Obispo, said another state law passed this year could put a further roadblock to new nuclear plants being built in California.
AB 1632 directs the California Energy Commission to assess the potential future role of nuclear energy in the state, including the costs and effects of storing spent fuel, he said.
Dealing with nuclear waste "is a question that the nuclear industry has had on their plate for half a century, and still hasn't answered," Weisman said.
It's also unclear what will become of the current federal loan guarantees for nuclear plant construction under a Congress controlled by Democrats. Some lawmakers, including U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., have expressed opposition to such subsidies in the past.
In a 2003 announcement, Feinstein also laid out California's mixed experience with nuclear power. Of the six plants built in the state, four were decommissioned due to high operating costs and excessive risk, the announcement said.
But the state's two operating nuclear plants do provide about 4,400 megawatts of power, or about 20% of the state's supply, the announcement said.
Hutson, who said he supports investment in a wide array of renewable and alternative energy sources as well as in nuclear power, pointed to the low costs of electricity from the nuclear plant his group is proposing as another reason for optimism.
He cited the need for America to find alternative sources of energy and reduce its dependence on foreign petroleum. "We think this is a patriotic thing to do," he said.
The reporter can be reached at jeffstjohn [at] fresnobee.com or (559) 441-6637.
//////////////////////
Nuclear plant idea takes hold
Group says it will seek power facility for Fresno.
By Jeff St. John / The Fresno Bee
12/14/06 04:13:21
A group of Fresno businessmen announced Wednesday that they have formed a corporation and signed a letter of intent with a power-plant developer to explore plans for a nuclear reactor in Fresno.
But with a California law banning new nuclear plants until the federal government comes up with a plan for safely disposing of spent fuel — and with federal plans for such disposal in limbo — the Fresno group's efforts could well be in vain, anti-nuclear groups said.
Still, the backers of Fresno Nuclear Energy Group LLC are optimistic, noting that new federal incentives for nuclear plants and California's growing need for electricity sources that don't emit greenhouse gases could improve their prospects.
"We're not rushing," said John Hutson, president and chief executive of the new corporation. As chairman of the Fresno Utility Commission, Hutson first floated the idea of a Fresno nuclear plant in August. "We're convinced this will work," he said.
Hutson cited the economic benefits a nuclear plant could bring to the central San Joaquin Valley — thousands of high-paying jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenues — as well as the role it could play in meeting California's growing demand for electricity.
The plan would be to manage the plant under a public-private partnership, he said, though he added that the details on how such a partnership would be structured is not yet clear.
The 2005 Energy Bill passed by Congress includes federal loan guarantees for up to 80% of the cost of construction, which would make finding financing for the project much easier, he said. Hutson acknowledged the state's moratorium on nuclear power plant construction is an obstacle, but said advances in nuclear fuel recycling, or a resolution by the federal government on storage of spent fuel, could allow the plan to go forward.
"The moratorium was written 25 years ago," he said. "I think the technology has changed, and I think the subject needs to be revisited."
The plan is to build a $4 billion, 1,600-megawatt nuclear reactor that would be cooled with water from the city's waste-water treatment plant west of downtown, Hutson said. His group has signed a letter of intent with UniStar Nuclear Development LLC, a subsidiary of Baltimore-based Constellation Energy, to design, build and operate the plant.
Current plans call for an "evolutionary power reactor," a new-generation pressure water reactor design identical to one UniStar is now building in Finland in partnership with the French nuclear power company Areva, he said.
Hutson said the design is much safer than the two nuclear plants now operating in California, at Diablo Canyon and at San Onofre. But, he said, even those older nuclear plants have strong safety records when compared to other industries.
"We want to make sure, first of all, that it's safe," he said. "It appears that it is at this point." The other members of Fresno Nuclear Energy Group include Al Smith, president and chief executive of the Fresno Chamber of Commerce; Dick Caglia, a prominent Fresno businessman; Richard Egan, owner of Central Supply Co. and other businesses in Fresno; Bob Smittcamp, president and chief executive officer of Fresno-based beverage and frozen and canned fruit company Lyons Magnus; and Tom McClean, a Bay Area-based contractor and consultant.
Fresno Nuclear Energy Group has access to about $10 million, the amount likely to be required for the multiyear process of seeking construction and operation licensing from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Hutson said.
"The federal government says they will not take longer to decide on a license than it takes to build it, and that means less than four years," he said. With four years to license and four years to build it, that's at least eight years before the plant could possibly be built, he said.
Fresno Mayor Alan Autry, responding to questions during an online chat Wednesday on http://www.fresnobee.com, strongly backed the idea.
"I believe nuclear power holds great promise for the entire San Joaquin Valley," Autry wrote. "We must find a way to become energy self-sufficient."
But skeptics of Fresno Nuclear Energy Group's proposal said they doubted the plant would ever be built — and the key obstacle, they said, is the state's moratorium.
"I think the odds are close to zero that the moratorium will be lifted, and for good reason," said Carl Zichella, regional staff director for the Sierra Club in Sacramento. "There are so many other things we can do that are so much smarter than wasting time on nuclear power."
The Sierra Club would like to see investments instead in alternative energy sources like solar and wind power, as well as renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel.
But Per Peterson, a professor of nuclear engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, said that he believed that the increasing recognition by politicians of the threat of human-caused global warming could change opinions about nuclear power.
"Today, compared to the 1970s, we know that carbon emissions are a major problem that can have potentially very large environmental consequences," he said. Problems associated with "the disposal of waste from nuclear plants are extremely small, compared to what we're worrying about from carbon emissions."
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which calls for the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, could add to pressure on state government to reconsider the moratorium, he said.
But David Weisman, outreach coordinator for the nuclear plant watchdog group Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility in San Luis Obispo, said another state law passed this year could put a further roadblock to new nuclear plants being built in California.
AB 1632 directs the California Energy Commission to assess the potential future role of nuclear energy in the state, including the costs and effects of storing spent fuel, he said.
Dealing with nuclear waste "is a question that the nuclear industry has had on their plate for half a century, and still hasn't answered," Weisman said.
It's also unclear what will become of the current federal loan guarantees for nuclear plant construction under a Congress controlled by Democrats. Some lawmakers, including U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., have expressed opposition to such subsidies in the past.
In a 2003 announcement, Feinstein also laid out California's mixed experience with nuclear power. Of the six plants built in the state, four were decommissioned due to high operating costs and excessive risk, the announcement said.
But the state's two operating nuclear plants do provide about 4,400 megawatts of power, or about 20% of the state's supply, the announcement said.
Hutson, who said he supports investment in a wide array of renewable and alternative energy sources as well as in nuclear power, pointed to the low costs of electricity from the nuclear plant his group is proposing as another reason for optimism.
He cited the need for America to find alternative sources of energy and reduce its dependence on foreign petroleum. "We think this is a patriotic thing to do," he said.
The reporter can be reached at jeffstjohn [at] fresnobee.com or (559) 441-6637.
I am in no way a report/journalist/writter or even a decent speller, but here is what I found out:
John Hutson, who is president and CEO of Fresno Nuclear Energy Group, is ALSO
Chairman of Fresno Utility Commission (isn't that a conflict of interest? guess not, since Cheney and the Oil industry were head of the Energy Task force).
"The group has picked a strong partner for their development project by choosing Unistar with its US-EPR power plant." if you look up "Unistar".
Here is what I found: Welcome to UniStar Nuclear:
Constellation Energy and AREVA, Inc. Each is well known for performance excellence. Together as UniStar Nuclear, our team is pioneering a new path forward, making a new fleet of advanced design nuclear power plants a reality. The addition of subcontractor **** Bechtel Power Corporation **** as the architect-engineer and constructor gives UniStar Nuclear unparalleled experience to bring new levels of certainty to energy companies and other interested parties seeking to design, license, construct and operate advanced nuclear power plants.
And then the big one.. The owners are just a big fatcat Fresno Republican group who is probably controlled by Smittcamp. If the local Union leaders and OSHA weren't paid off, Smittcamp's business Lyon Magnus would have probably already been shut down. Smittcamp doesn't care about the people or what happens to future generations. just making more money and impressing others. The Smittcamps are sort of Fresno's Bush Family.
The other members of Fresno Nuclear Energy Group include:
Al Smith, president and chief executive of the Fresno Chamber of Commerce; (past manager of KMJ)
Dick Caglia, a prominent Fresno businessman; (Grandville homes) GOP donor
Richard Egan, owner of Central Supply Co. and other businesses in Fresno; GOP donor
Bob Smittcamp, president and chief executive officer of Fresno-based beverage and frozen and canned fruit company Lyons Magnus; (GOP donor, and hosts many GOP fundraisers including Jeb Bush’s)
and Tom McClean, a Bay Area-based contractor and consultant.
Fresno Nuclear Energy Group has access to about $10 million, the amount likely to be required for the multiyear process of seeking construction and operation licensing from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
***
Is there hope ?
** Well look at what has happened to the Bush family and their business partners/friends.. Many have been indicted.. and although not indicted themselves we know the criminal activity of George Sr. (contra), George Jr (too many to count), Jeb (Harris memo 2000 election), Neil (S &L theft)..then we can look at the friends: Ken Lay, Delay, Cheney, .. the list goes on.
**With the downfall of the Neo-conmen on the National level.. will it also happen in Fresno ? Or will the citizens' of Fresno still allow these Crooks to do what ever they want?
KMJ is no longer the only talk radio in Fresno, we now have Air America 790AM
KFCF 88.1FM is still giving progressive news and Democracy Now
Community Alliance has gained more readers, and
the Progressive Community of the Central Valley has formed a PAC to help educated us on honest, honorable candidates, and help select politicians who will bring a positive change in the Central Valley, instead of making a personal profit.
Business as Usually in Fresno is not as easy as it used to be
I hope another news outlet picks up this story before it is too late.
John Hutson, who is president and CEO of Fresno Nuclear Energy Group, is ALSO
Chairman of Fresno Utility Commission (isn't that a conflict of interest? guess not, since Cheney and the Oil industry were head of the Energy Task force).
"The group has picked a strong partner for their development project by choosing Unistar with its US-EPR power plant." if you look up "Unistar".
Here is what I found: Welcome to UniStar Nuclear:
Constellation Energy and AREVA, Inc. Each is well known for performance excellence. Together as UniStar Nuclear, our team is pioneering a new path forward, making a new fleet of advanced design nuclear power plants a reality. The addition of subcontractor **** Bechtel Power Corporation **** as the architect-engineer and constructor gives UniStar Nuclear unparalleled experience to bring new levels of certainty to energy companies and other interested parties seeking to design, license, construct and operate advanced nuclear power plants.
And then the big one.. The owners are just a big fatcat Fresno Republican group who is probably controlled by Smittcamp. If the local Union leaders and OSHA weren't paid off, Smittcamp's business Lyon Magnus would have probably already been shut down. Smittcamp doesn't care about the people or what happens to future generations. just making more money and impressing others. The Smittcamps are sort of Fresno's Bush Family.
The other members of Fresno Nuclear Energy Group include:
Al Smith, president and chief executive of the Fresno Chamber of Commerce; (past manager of KMJ)
Dick Caglia, a prominent Fresno businessman; (Grandville homes) GOP donor
Richard Egan, owner of Central Supply Co. and other businesses in Fresno; GOP donor
Bob Smittcamp, president and chief executive officer of Fresno-based beverage and frozen and canned fruit company Lyons Magnus; (GOP donor, and hosts many GOP fundraisers including Jeb Bush’s)
and Tom McClean, a Bay Area-based contractor and consultant.
Fresno Nuclear Energy Group has access to about $10 million, the amount likely to be required for the multiyear process of seeking construction and operation licensing from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
***
Is there hope ?
** Well look at what has happened to the Bush family and their business partners/friends.. Many have been indicted.. and although not indicted themselves we know the criminal activity of George Sr. (contra), George Jr (too many to count), Jeb (Harris memo 2000 election), Neil (S &L theft)..then we can look at the friends: Ken Lay, Delay, Cheney, .. the list goes on.
**With the downfall of the Neo-conmen on the National level.. will it also happen in Fresno ? Or will the citizens' of Fresno still allow these Crooks to do what ever they want?
KMJ is no longer the only talk radio in Fresno, we now have Air America 790AM
KFCF 88.1FM is still giving progressive news and Democracy Now
Community Alliance has gained more readers, and
the Progressive Community of the Central Valley has formed a PAC to help educated us on honest, honorable candidates, and help select politicians who will bring a positive change in the Central Valley, instead of making a personal profit.
Business as Usually in Fresno is not as easy as it used to be
I hope another news outlet picks up this story before it is too late.
The Dept. of Energy's Complex (aka "Bombplex") 2030 contains the written goal of expansion of US nuclear energy AND nuclear weapons, part of the ongoing escalation between Bush and Iran's Ahmadinejad. Despite the fact that there is no known safe method of disposal of nuclear waste (NOT Depleted Uranium weapon shells, tank armaments, etc..) the DOE is proposing the expansion of nuclear energy is environmentally friendly, using fear-mongering threats of "peak oil" to promote increased nuclear energy and threats of "terrorism" to promote nuclear weapons production..
The Shundahai Network has additional info on DOE's proposed "Bombplex 2030", and is encouraging public comment against Complex 2030 before the Jan 17th deadline..
"What is Complex 2030
Nuclear Proliferation steps into high gear with the announcement of Complex 2030. (Material for this page was provided by Alliance for Nuclear Accountability and Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety.)
In reality, Complex 2030 is a bizarrely inappropriate Dr. Strangelove-esque plan to revitalize the United States’ nuclear weapons production capability in order to manufacture the new Reliable Replacement Warhead, which will potentially drive a new nuclear weapons arms race. Despite the end of the Cold War almost two decades ago, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which manages DOE’s nuclear weapons programs, is aggressively pursuing new military missions and designs to carry out the expanded first strike options envisioned in the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review.
Bombplex 2030 essentially seeks to replace old nukes with new and more usable nukes. They are proposing to consolidate and renovate nuclear weapons facilities that are located all around our country. The plans will lessen the number of nukes currently on hand, however, it will give the U.S. the power to build new nukes at an astonishing rate. Is this your vision of the world in 2030?
Bombplex 2030 is a complete overhaul of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex with the goal of continuously producing new nuclear weapons, with the Reliable Replacement Warheads being the first off the production line. It is being sold by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) as a smaller, more efficient, more modern, “safer” nuclear weapons complex than the current one. The available details tell a different story. All of the existing nuclear weapons sites will still be in operation, supporting a “responsive infrastructure” with increased design and production capabilities that could spark a new nuclear arms race."
read on @;
http://www.shundahai.org/bombplex2030.htm
Fresno is just one of many locations throughout the US that will be an experimental playground for the DOE's nuclear energy and weapons production, residents will be at greater risk of cancer from US nuclear energy/weapons radiation exposure than we'll ever be at risk from Iran's non-existant nuclear energy/weapons program, likewise the people of Iran would be at greater risk from Iranian nuclear energy/weapons than people in the US. This is evidenced by nuclear meltdown accidents at Chernobyl in USSR effected Soviet residents primarily with higher rates of leukemia, cancer, etc.., while Three Mile Island (Harrisburg, PA) meltdown accident effected downwind residents in Lancaster, Philadelphia eith increased rates of cancer, leukemia. Of course, if you are a US resident exposed to nuclear radiation, don't expect any help or even acknowledgement or your condition from your friendly, benevolent US government officials..
"At that very time, lawsuits were underway by servicemen who had been deliberately exposed to the radioactive fallout from nuclear-bomb tests in the 1950s. The servicemen were seeking compensation for the leukemia and cancers that had shown up among them at many times the normal rate. Another lawsuit, which had just come to trial in Philadelphia the week before Three Mile Island, involved a petition filed in behalf of men who participated in military exercises at the Nevada Test Site. At issue was whether or not the government should be required to notify the men that they had a significant risk of genetic damage that could affect their decision to have children. And finally, hundreds of individual lawsuits had been filed against the government by residents of Nevada and Utah for leukemia and cancer cases resulting from the years of exposure to the fallout clouds from the tactical-weapons tests.
Under these circumstances the last thing either the industry or the government wanted was testimony that might set off still another flurry of potentially costly damage suits in the Harrisburg area by women who were pregnant, some of whom might have miscarriages or lose their babies at the time of birth. Even the possibility of one such suit could threaten the survival of the nuclear industry, already reeling from the shock of an accident that it had assured the public would be as unlikely as being hit by a meteor while walking on the street.
The hearings by the Kennedy Committee did indeed go exactly as the concerned environmental groups expected. One government witness after another sent to testify by the White House assured the public that among the two million people living within 50 miles, and the hundreds of thousands who would normally be expected to die of cancer, there might perhaps be one or at most a few extra cancer cases, clearly a totally undetectable and therefore insignificant number. And, of course, not a word was said about the much more likely effects on infant mortality."
read on @;
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/SecretFallout/SFchp17.html
Again, the only beneficiaries of the nuclear weapons race are nihilistic leaders like GW Bush and the religious right (Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc..) Christian Zionists bent on creating an man-made nuclear holocaust Armageddon to drive biological organisms off the planet Earth. In the meantime the fanatical patriarchs will escalate tensions between various ethnic groups (Zionist Israel vs. Palestinians) all the while stockpiling their nuclear weapons technology. The only outcome of any potential nuclear conflict is Mutually Assurred Destruction, or MADness..
It is possible and probable that Christian Zionists will attempt to use the nuclear weapons stockpiles of US/Israel to promote their dispensationalist interpretations of Biblical Revelations to push their Armageddon on the people of Earth..
"President Ronald Reagan embraced the dispensationalist theology preached to him by evangelists Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (a Republican presidential candidate in 1988), and believed that one of his responsibilities was to promote a military buildup so America would be ready for the battle of Armageddon (Campolo 2005). According to Tom Valentine,24 'Charles Fischbein, a former high-ranking figure in the Israeli lobby in America, pointed out that even former President Reagan and his attorney general, Edwin Meese, were praying for Armageddon to come during the Reagan era. Reagan undoubtedly tied in with this idea that there has to be an Armageddon'. In an intimate phone conversation with AIPAC director Tom Dine, President Reagan was quoted as saying, 'You know, I turn back to your ancient prophets in the Old Testament and signs foretelling Armageddon, and I find myself wondering if - if we're the generation that's going to see that come about. I don't know if you've noted any of those prophecies lately, but believe me, they certainly describe the times we're going through' (Dugger 1984). These esoteric conversations give evidence that the policy actions taken by Reagan were consistent with the ideologies of dispensationalist theology and that Reagan applied this theology when making policy decisions.
Throughout George W. Bush's first term in office, leaders in the Christian Zionist community have been assured through specific incidents that the US administration will unequivocally support Israel throughout its [End Page 88] policy decisions. While the Bush Administration may dispute these claims, these commitments of support are derived from verbatim public statements made by Christian Zionist leaders who have met with President Bush, such as Jerry Falwell. During a 60 Minutes interview in October 2002 Falwell commented, 'I think now we can count on President Bush to do the right thing for Israel every time',25 referring to President Bush's actions in April 2002 when he turned a blind eye as Israel destroyed several West Bank cities. These statements by Falwell do not bode well for the US's credibility that it is taking the role of an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Christian Zionists have also been overt about their displeasure towards the US playing an even-handed role, or even purporting to, and want the US to abandon the idea of a Palestinian state and give Israel sole sovereignty over the Palestinian territories."
read on @;
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15422.htm
The Shundahai Network has additional info on DOE's proposed "Bombplex 2030", and is encouraging public comment against Complex 2030 before the Jan 17th deadline..
"What is Complex 2030
Nuclear Proliferation steps into high gear with the announcement of Complex 2030. (Material for this page was provided by Alliance for Nuclear Accountability and Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety.)
In reality, Complex 2030 is a bizarrely inappropriate Dr. Strangelove-esque plan to revitalize the United States’ nuclear weapons production capability in order to manufacture the new Reliable Replacement Warhead, which will potentially drive a new nuclear weapons arms race. Despite the end of the Cold War almost two decades ago, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which manages DOE’s nuclear weapons programs, is aggressively pursuing new military missions and designs to carry out the expanded first strike options envisioned in the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review.
Bombplex 2030 essentially seeks to replace old nukes with new and more usable nukes. They are proposing to consolidate and renovate nuclear weapons facilities that are located all around our country. The plans will lessen the number of nukes currently on hand, however, it will give the U.S. the power to build new nukes at an astonishing rate. Is this your vision of the world in 2030?
Bombplex 2030 is a complete overhaul of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex with the goal of continuously producing new nuclear weapons, with the Reliable Replacement Warheads being the first off the production line. It is being sold by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) as a smaller, more efficient, more modern, “safer” nuclear weapons complex than the current one. The available details tell a different story. All of the existing nuclear weapons sites will still be in operation, supporting a “responsive infrastructure” with increased design and production capabilities that could spark a new nuclear arms race."
read on @;
http://www.shundahai.org/bombplex2030.htm
Fresno is just one of many locations throughout the US that will be an experimental playground for the DOE's nuclear energy and weapons production, residents will be at greater risk of cancer from US nuclear energy/weapons radiation exposure than we'll ever be at risk from Iran's non-existant nuclear energy/weapons program, likewise the people of Iran would be at greater risk from Iranian nuclear energy/weapons than people in the US. This is evidenced by nuclear meltdown accidents at Chernobyl in USSR effected Soviet residents primarily with higher rates of leukemia, cancer, etc.., while Three Mile Island (Harrisburg, PA) meltdown accident effected downwind residents in Lancaster, Philadelphia eith increased rates of cancer, leukemia. Of course, if you are a US resident exposed to nuclear radiation, don't expect any help or even acknowledgement or your condition from your friendly, benevolent US government officials..
"At that very time, lawsuits were underway by servicemen who had been deliberately exposed to the radioactive fallout from nuclear-bomb tests in the 1950s. The servicemen were seeking compensation for the leukemia and cancers that had shown up among them at many times the normal rate. Another lawsuit, which had just come to trial in Philadelphia the week before Three Mile Island, involved a petition filed in behalf of men who participated in military exercises at the Nevada Test Site. At issue was whether or not the government should be required to notify the men that they had a significant risk of genetic damage that could affect their decision to have children. And finally, hundreds of individual lawsuits had been filed against the government by residents of Nevada and Utah for leukemia and cancer cases resulting from the years of exposure to the fallout clouds from the tactical-weapons tests.
Under these circumstances the last thing either the industry or the government wanted was testimony that might set off still another flurry of potentially costly damage suits in the Harrisburg area by women who were pregnant, some of whom might have miscarriages or lose their babies at the time of birth. Even the possibility of one such suit could threaten the survival of the nuclear industry, already reeling from the shock of an accident that it had assured the public would be as unlikely as being hit by a meteor while walking on the street.
The hearings by the Kennedy Committee did indeed go exactly as the concerned environmental groups expected. One government witness after another sent to testify by the White House assured the public that among the two million people living within 50 miles, and the hundreds of thousands who would normally be expected to die of cancer, there might perhaps be one or at most a few extra cancer cases, clearly a totally undetectable and therefore insignificant number. And, of course, not a word was said about the much more likely effects on infant mortality."
read on @;
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/SecretFallout/SFchp17.html
Again, the only beneficiaries of the nuclear weapons race are nihilistic leaders like GW Bush and the religious right (Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc..) Christian Zionists bent on creating an man-made nuclear holocaust Armageddon to drive biological organisms off the planet Earth. In the meantime the fanatical patriarchs will escalate tensions between various ethnic groups (Zionist Israel vs. Palestinians) all the while stockpiling their nuclear weapons technology. The only outcome of any potential nuclear conflict is Mutually Assurred Destruction, or MADness..
It is possible and probable that Christian Zionists will attempt to use the nuclear weapons stockpiles of US/Israel to promote their dispensationalist interpretations of Biblical Revelations to push their Armageddon on the people of Earth..
"President Ronald Reagan embraced the dispensationalist theology preached to him by evangelists Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (a Republican presidential candidate in 1988), and believed that one of his responsibilities was to promote a military buildup so America would be ready for the battle of Armageddon (Campolo 2005). According to Tom Valentine,24 'Charles Fischbein, a former high-ranking figure in the Israeli lobby in America, pointed out that even former President Reagan and his attorney general, Edwin Meese, were praying for Armageddon to come during the Reagan era. Reagan undoubtedly tied in with this idea that there has to be an Armageddon'. In an intimate phone conversation with AIPAC director Tom Dine, President Reagan was quoted as saying, 'You know, I turn back to your ancient prophets in the Old Testament and signs foretelling Armageddon, and I find myself wondering if - if we're the generation that's going to see that come about. I don't know if you've noted any of those prophecies lately, but believe me, they certainly describe the times we're going through' (Dugger 1984). These esoteric conversations give evidence that the policy actions taken by Reagan were consistent with the ideologies of dispensationalist theology and that Reagan applied this theology when making policy decisions.
Throughout George W. Bush's first term in office, leaders in the Christian Zionist community have been assured through specific incidents that the US administration will unequivocally support Israel throughout its [End Page 88] policy decisions. While the Bush Administration may dispute these claims, these commitments of support are derived from verbatim public statements made by Christian Zionist leaders who have met with President Bush, such as Jerry Falwell. During a 60 Minutes interview in October 2002 Falwell commented, 'I think now we can count on President Bush to do the right thing for Israel every time',25 referring to President Bush's actions in April 2002 when he turned a blind eye as Israel destroyed several West Bank cities. These statements by Falwell do not bode well for the US's credibility that it is taking the role of an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Christian Zionists have also been overt about their displeasure towards the US playing an even-handed role, or even purporting to, and want the US to abandon the idea of a Palestinian state and give Israel sole sovereignty over the Palestinian territories."
read on @;
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15422.htm
Why wouldn't the unions support this? It would be the largest employer in the central valley, provide substainal revenue to the local community in its taxes, increased lodging and dining revenue during refueling outages, and provide clean and safe electricity.
This is bad how?
I think would be a great step for CA to take as one of the countries largest importer of electricity.
This is bad how?
I think would be a great step for CA to take as one of the countries largest importer of electricity.
Just a few reasons why I like New Nuclear Power:
1) Nuclear Power Plants produce significantly less CO2 then fossil fuel power plants, but also less than wind and hydro power plants. If you do a complete analysis of CO2 production including mining, fuel processing, construction, and normal operation; CO2 production per GWe of electricity for a nuclear power plant is half of that produced by solar power. http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/pdf/fdm1181.pdf
2) Continuous Oversight. The NRC houses nuclear power plant experts at each and every nuclear power plant. The NRC also continuously reviews engineering, training, operations, maintenance, and management at each of these operating facilities. The NRC also reviews all new designs and changes to the nuclear fleet prior to approving the use in any operating nuclear facility.
3) Internal Oversight. Each nuclear power plant employees a department of individuals to provide oversight of their home facilities. The Quality Assurance personnel sole responsibility is to review work and decisions made by their peers.
4) Industry Oversight. The nuclear power industry has developed an organization called Institute of Nuclear Power Operators (INPO), where high potential candidates from each nuclear facility spend rotations working for INPO. During these rotations they provide expertise for plant questions and complete comprehensive plant evaluations where they document areas of improvement on themselves.
5) Safety. No one has died from a nuclear related accident at a power plant in the USA. That’s right, no one died because of Three Mile Island. Pennsylvania continued to study the residents that surrounded the TMI plant for 20 years to determine if an increase in mortality rate could be observed and it was determined that there was no significant correlation between the TMI accident and mortality rate. http://www.ehponline.org/members/2000/108p545-552talbott/talbott-full.html
6) Expectation of Perfection. The multiple layers of oversight works. In one of the most well known recent incidents at a nuclear power plant; the NRC levied a $5.4Million dollar fine as well as banned the engineer who provided false documentation of inspections. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7589842/ When tritium leaks became a concern in 2005, the industry adopted tougher guidelines even though EPA standards on tritium levels in ground water was never broken. http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/05/09/nuclear_industry_adopts_new_policies_on_radioactive_water/
7) Jobs – Building new nuclear power plants will create thousands of construction jobs, and depending on the design selection; hundreds of well paying full time jobs. These jobs will attract well educated, highly paid individuals to maintain the facility and to pay taxes in the local area.
8) Energy Independence. Uranium can come from many different sources including Canada, the USA, Russia, and Australian mines. None of which are located in the middle east.
1) Nuclear Power Plants produce significantly less CO2 then fossil fuel power plants, but also less than wind and hydro power plants. If you do a complete analysis of CO2 production including mining, fuel processing, construction, and normal operation; CO2 production per GWe of electricity for a nuclear power plant is half of that produced by solar power. http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/pdf/fdm1181.pdf
2) Continuous Oversight. The NRC houses nuclear power plant experts at each and every nuclear power plant. The NRC also continuously reviews engineering, training, operations, maintenance, and management at each of these operating facilities. The NRC also reviews all new designs and changes to the nuclear fleet prior to approving the use in any operating nuclear facility.
3) Internal Oversight. Each nuclear power plant employees a department of individuals to provide oversight of their home facilities. The Quality Assurance personnel sole responsibility is to review work and decisions made by their peers.
4) Industry Oversight. The nuclear power industry has developed an organization called Institute of Nuclear Power Operators (INPO), where high potential candidates from each nuclear facility spend rotations working for INPO. During these rotations they provide expertise for plant questions and complete comprehensive plant evaluations where they document areas of improvement on themselves.
5) Safety. No one has died from a nuclear related accident at a power plant in the USA. That’s right, no one died because of Three Mile Island. Pennsylvania continued to study the residents that surrounded the TMI plant for 20 years to determine if an increase in mortality rate could be observed and it was determined that there was no significant correlation between the TMI accident and mortality rate. http://www.ehponline.org/members/2000/108p545-552talbott/talbott-full.html
6) Expectation of Perfection. The multiple layers of oversight works. In one of the most well known recent incidents at a nuclear power plant; the NRC levied a $5.4Million dollar fine as well as banned the engineer who provided false documentation of inspections. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7589842/ When tritium leaks became a concern in 2005, the industry adopted tougher guidelines even though EPA standards on tritium levels in ground water was never broken. http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/05/09/nuclear_industry_adopts_new_policies_on_radioactive_water/
7) Jobs – Building new nuclear power plants will create thousands of construction jobs, and depending on the design selection; hundreds of well paying full time jobs. These jobs will attract well educated, highly paid individuals to maintain the facility and to pay taxes in the local area.
8) Energy Independence. Uranium can come from many different sources including Canada, the USA, Russia, and Australian mines. None of which are located in the middle east.
Just a few reasons why I like New Nuclear Power:
1) Nuclear Power Plants produce significantly less CO2 then fossil fuel power plants, but also less than wind and hydro power plants. If you do a complete analysis of CO2 production including mining, fuel processing, construction, and normal operation; CO2 production per GWe of electricity for a nuclear power plant is half of that produced by solar power. http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/pdf/fdm1181.pdf
2) Continuous Oversight. The NRC houses nuclear power plant experts at each and every nuclear power plant. The NRC also continuously reviews engineering, training, operations, maintenance, and management at each of these operating facilities. The NRC also reviews all new designs and changes to the nuclear fleet prior to approving the use in any operating nuclear facility.
3) Internal Oversight. Each nuclear power plant employees a department of individuals to provide oversight of their home facilities. The Quality Assurance personnel sole responsibility is to review work and decisions made by their peers.
4) Industry Oversight. The nuclear power industry has developed an organization called Institute of Nuclear Power Operators (INPO), where high potential candidates from each nuclear facility spend rotations working for INPO. During these rotations they provide expertise for plant questions and complete comprehensive plant evaluations where they document areas of improvement on themselves.
5) Safety. No one has died from a nuclear related accident at a power plant in the USA. That’s right, no one died because of Three Mile Island. Pennsylvania continued to study the residents that surrounded the TMI plant for 20 years to determine if an increase in mortality rate could be observed and it was determined that there was no significant correlation between the TMI accident and mortality rate. http://www.ehponline.org/members/2000/108p545-552talbott/talbott-full.html
6) Expectation of Perfection. The multiple layers of oversight works. In one of the most well known recent incidents at a nuclear power plant; the NRC levied a $5.4Million dollar fine as well as banned the engineer who provided false documentation of inspections. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7589842/ When tritium leaks became a concern in 2005, the industry adopted tougher guidelines even though EPA standards on tritium levels in ground water was never broken. http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/05/09/nuclear_industry_adopts_new_policies_on_radioactive_water/
7) Jobs – Building new nuclear power plants will create thousands of construction jobs, and depending on the design selection; hundreds of well paying full time jobs. These jobs will attract well educated, highly paid individuals to maintain the facility and to pay taxes in the local area.
8) Energy Independence. Uranium can come from many different sources including Canada, the USA, Russia, and Australian mines. None of which are located in the middle east.
1) Nuclear Power Plants produce significantly less CO2 then fossil fuel power plants, but also less than wind and hydro power plants. If you do a complete analysis of CO2 production including mining, fuel processing, construction, and normal operation; CO2 production per GWe of electricity for a nuclear power plant is half of that produced by solar power. http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/pdf/fdm1181.pdf
2) Continuous Oversight. The NRC houses nuclear power plant experts at each and every nuclear power plant. The NRC also continuously reviews engineering, training, operations, maintenance, and management at each of these operating facilities. The NRC also reviews all new designs and changes to the nuclear fleet prior to approving the use in any operating nuclear facility.
3) Internal Oversight. Each nuclear power plant employees a department of individuals to provide oversight of their home facilities. The Quality Assurance personnel sole responsibility is to review work and decisions made by their peers.
4) Industry Oversight. The nuclear power industry has developed an organization called Institute of Nuclear Power Operators (INPO), where high potential candidates from each nuclear facility spend rotations working for INPO. During these rotations they provide expertise for plant questions and complete comprehensive plant evaluations where they document areas of improvement on themselves.
5) Safety. No one has died from a nuclear related accident at a power plant in the USA. That’s right, no one died because of Three Mile Island. Pennsylvania continued to study the residents that surrounded the TMI plant for 20 years to determine if an increase in mortality rate could be observed and it was determined that there was no significant correlation between the TMI accident and mortality rate. http://www.ehponline.org/members/2000/108p545-552talbott/talbott-full.html
6) Expectation of Perfection. The multiple layers of oversight works. In one of the most well known recent incidents at a nuclear power plant; the NRC levied a $5.4Million dollar fine as well as banned the engineer who provided false documentation of inspections. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7589842/ When tritium leaks became a concern in 2005, the industry adopted tougher guidelines even though EPA standards on tritium levels in ground water was never broken. http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/05/09/nuclear_industry_adopts_new_policies_on_radioactive_water/
7) Jobs – Building new nuclear power plants will create thousands of construction jobs, and depending on the design selection; hundreds of well paying full time jobs. These jobs will attract well educated, highly paid individuals to maintain the facility and to pay taxes in the local area.
8) Energy Independence. Uranium can come from many different sources including Canada, the USA, Russia, and Australian mines. None of which are located in the middle east.
1) Solar Cells are great… That’s right Solar Cells are great! But the problem is that most individuals can’t afford to retro-fit their homes with solar technology. Initial installation for an average home is somewhere around $19,000 out of pocket and in order to get a financial break-even point for the average household, it takes around 12 years. Not many of us can personally afford to make this investment. http://256.com/solar/
2) Alternative Power is great… That’s right alternative energy is great, but a capacity factor is the ratio of actual productivity in a year to theoretical maximum in that year. A well run wind facility will have a 35% capacity factor for wind facilities, 70% for coal plants, and 30% for oil plants. This is much lower than the 90% for nuclear plants. Personally, I don’t want electricity only 35% of the time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power
3) Wind Power is great… that’s right wind power is great, but only in the right locations. Most of California doesn’t receive a fast enough wind speed so it isn’t suitable for wind power development. http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/maps/chap2/2-01m.html
4) Trees are great…. Wind turbines require around 0.1 square kilometres (0.0386 mi^2) of unobstructed land per megawatt of nameplate capacity. A wind farm that produces the energy equivalent of a conventional 2 GW power plant might have turbines spread out over an area of approximately 200 square kilometres (77.2 mi^2). The portions of California that do have a sufficient wind speed generally overlaps with our beautiful forest. I like the forest we currently have. I don’t want to clear any more trees. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Ecological_footprint
5) Conservation is great! I can personally do my part; I can only hope everyone else is pitching in. Let us find common ground and identify a logical way to save megawatts without impeding anyone’s quality of life.
Nuclear Power is a safe, reliable source of power that can be increased to support our energy needs without adding greenhouse gases to our atmosphere, demolishing our forest, and will be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
2) Alternative Power is great… That’s right alternative energy is great, but a capacity factor is the ratio of actual productivity in a year to theoretical maximum in that year. A well run wind facility will have a 35% capacity factor for wind facilities, 70% for coal plants, and 30% for oil plants. This is much lower than the 90% for nuclear plants. Personally, I don’t want electricity only 35% of the time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power
3) Wind Power is great… that’s right wind power is great, but only in the right locations. Most of California doesn’t receive a fast enough wind speed so it isn’t suitable for wind power development. http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/maps/chap2/2-01m.html
4) Trees are great…. Wind turbines require around 0.1 square kilometres (0.0386 mi^2) of unobstructed land per megawatt of nameplate capacity. A wind farm that produces the energy equivalent of a conventional 2 GW power plant might have turbines spread out over an area of approximately 200 square kilometres (77.2 mi^2). The portions of California that do have a sufficient wind speed generally overlaps with our beautiful forest. I like the forest we currently have. I don’t want to clear any more trees. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Ecological_footprint
5) Conservation is great! I can personally do my part; I can only hope everyone else is pitching in. Let us find common ground and identify a logical way to save megawatts without impeding anyone’s quality of life.
Nuclear Power is a safe, reliable source of power that can be increased to support our energy needs without adding greenhouse gases to our atmosphere, demolishing our forest, and will be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
WHY NOT SOLAR? IF SOLAR LEAKS ... NO CHERNOBLE. [SP?] WITH THE EXPENSE OF NUKES
SOLAR FOR EVERYBODY. FOLLOW THE MONEY.
SOLAR FOR EVERYBODY. FOLLOW THE MONEY.
For more information:
http://http
In addition to all the potential operational problems there are construction problems that have not been talked about. As an example before a plant can be built there must be an evacuation plan approved by local, state and national agencies. By placing the plant in the middle of a highly populated area this plan becomes very important and complex. Due to a lack of an acceptable plan a Long Island plant was never started up as a nuclear plant. Further more the entire design and any changes must be approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This process is very long and expensive and without experienced engineers to walk the design through this process the likely hood of approval is very small.
As regards the mayors comments about the size of this 1600 megawatt power plant, he is way off the mark. this plant would be huge. An approximate size would be equal to our baseball stadium just for the generating part of the installation. There would be additional buildings to support the cooling of the unit and the switching yard so it would probably approach two to three times the size of Grizzly Stadium.
I am familiar with the nuclear industry after having worked in it for fifteen years and visited and helped design many of the plants around the United States. I do not think the middle of Fresno is the right place to locate a nuclear power plant due to the high density of population. No matter how good the control system is the operators can always get around it as they did at Three Mile Island which caused the over heating of the core and the escape of radiation.
The expertiese in design of nuclear power plants has been diluted becasue none have been built in the United States for so long. There has been no mention of the engineers who will design the plant and what plants they have designed in the past few years. If it will be a European company that will design the plant they will still have to have their design reviewed by the NRC which has very different requirements than the European requirements.
All in all I think we should take a step back and have the Nuclear Group come up with a more detailed and realistic presentation. As it stands right now it appears they do not know what they are doing.
As regards the mayors comments about the size of this 1600 megawatt power plant, he is way off the mark. this plant would be huge. An approximate size would be equal to our baseball stadium just for the generating part of the installation. There would be additional buildings to support the cooling of the unit and the switching yard so it would probably approach two to three times the size of Grizzly Stadium.
I am familiar with the nuclear industry after having worked in it for fifteen years and visited and helped design many of the plants around the United States. I do not think the middle of Fresno is the right place to locate a nuclear power plant due to the high density of population. No matter how good the control system is the operators can always get around it as they did at Three Mile Island which caused the over heating of the core and the escape of radiation.
The expertiese in design of nuclear power plants has been diluted becasue none have been built in the United States for so long. There has been no mention of the engineers who will design the plant and what plants they have designed in the past few years. If it will be a European company that will design the plant they will still have to have their design reviewed by the NRC which has very different requirements than the European requirements.
All in all I think we should take a step back and have the Nuclear Group come up with a more detailed and realistic presentation. As it stands right now it appears they do not know what they are doing.
You guys are pretty much clueless about nuclear power. It is one of the safest uses of power out there. The only accident that ever happened in the US was 3mile, and nobody died from that.
I'd rather have a nuclear power plant here in Fresno than a Coal power plant anyday. Global warming is more likely than a nuclear meltdown. Say yes to nuclear power in Fresno.
I'd rather have a nuclear power plant here in Fresno than a Coal power plant anyday. Global warming is more likely than a nuclear meltdown. Say yes to nuclear power in Fresno.
Actually, 3 Mile Island is NOT the only nuclear accident to occur in the United States. Ever heard of Santa Susanna? It is in Southern Cal. and had a meltdown that released 200 times the radiation of 3 Mile Island. It was kept secret until the 80's. There have actually been dozens of accidents and near meltdowns in almost all of this nation's power plants. Rancho Seco was thirty seconds from a meltdown and engineers accidentally avoided the disaster--Pretty lucky.
Indeed, 4 of the 6 nuclear plants in California have been closed because of safety or cost issues. Nuclear energy is becoming one of the most expensive energy options because the price of Uranium has quintupled since 2001. Uranium is a nonrenewable resource just like oil, and when you start running out it gets more expensive.
Indeed, 4 of the 6 nuclear plants in California have been closed because of safety or cost issues. Nuclear energy is becoming one of the most expensive energy options because the price of Uranium has quintupled since 2001. Uranium is a nonrenewable resource just like oil, and when you start running out it gets more expensive.
If the depleted rods are recycled. approximately 98% of the potential energy is still in the rods. The French and the Japanese are building plants to reproscess the spent fuel rods. There are some bad isotopes that have to be handled safely. There's been a great smear of the real facts about Nuclear power in the last 30 years. Asia and India are rushing to build these plants and we will be back in the stone age if we don't have inexpensive energy. Where do you think you will get the cheap energy required to fuel hydrogen powered cars? A good book to read is " the Environomental case for Nuclear Power" by Robert C. Morris. It was written before 9/11 and our new realization that Global Warming is for real.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network