nuclear energy stop petition

[rodeodance]

I added to my letter--think alternative--put researchers, technions, workers to work!! ect ect.


email I recieved this morning:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: U.S. PIRG : Stop Global Warming from Going Nuclear
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:17:03 -0500
From: Gene Karpinski, U.S. PIRG Executive Director <[e-mail]>
To: xxxx


Dear U.S. PIRG supporter,

Today, the U.S. Senate begins consideration of the anti-environment energy bill, and some senators are threatening to make the bill even worse.

Senators John McCain (AZ) and Joe Lieberman (CT) may offer an amendment to the energy bill that includes massive government handouts for the nuclear power industry to build the first new nuclear reactor in the U.S. in 30 years as part of an amendment aimed at reducing global warming pollution. We can meet our future energy needs and reduce global warming pollution without increasing our reliance on nuclear energy, which is dangerous, expensive and creates more nuclear waste that we have no way to store safely or get rid of.

Please take a moment to ask your senators to oppose any global warming amendment that includes subsidies for nuclear power. Then, forward this email on to three friends and ask them to contact their senators as well.

To take action, click here or paste this link into your web browser:
http://www.pirg.org/alerts/route.asp?id=27&id4=ES


Background

Nuclear power is dangerous, expensive, and unnecessary to meet our nation's energy needs. The 100 existing nuclear power plants across the country already put surrounding communities at risk for radiation exposure in the event of a terrorist attack or accident, and the plants produce highly radioactive waste that remains dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years.

The good news is that we can meet our future electricity needs and reduce global warming pollution without increasing our reliance on nuclear energy. A 2004 study by Synapse Energy Economics found that by improving energy efficiency and developing America's vast wind, solar, and other clean energy potential, the U.S. could reduce its emissions of global warming pollution from electricity generation by 47 percent by 2025 compared to business as usual, while saving $36 billion annually in electricity costs and cutting our reliance on nuclear power by nearly half.

Unfortunately, Senators McCain and Lieberman may offer a global warming amendment to the energy bill as early as this week that includes more than $5 billion in subsidies for the nuclear power industry to build the first new nuclear reactor in the U.S. in 30 years.

Please take a moment to ask your senators to oppose any amendment to the energy bill that includes nuclear subsidies as a solution to global warming. Then, forward this email onto three friends and ask them to contact their senators as well.

To take action, click here or paste this link into your web browser:
http://www.pirg.org/alerts/route.asp?id=27&id4=ES

Sincerely,

Gene Karpinski
U.S. PIRG Executive Director
[e-mail]
http://www.USPIRG.org

P.S. Thanks again for your support. Please feel free to share this e-mail with your family and friends.

----------

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Good luck, with peak oil occurring in the next 5 years and all

[MadHound]

2. Well, if we act in a calm, rational manner, rather than being hysterical

We can overcome Peak Oil problems without resorting to new nukes. Plain and simple, we have the tech and resources to wean ourselves completely off of fossil fuels. Hell, according to the DOE, there is enough harvestable wind energy in South Dakota, North Dakota and Texas to fulfill our electrical needs through the year 2030. Gee, we have the tech to make biodiesel hybrids. Add in a spare battery or two, and we can really go to town.

The trouble is that such efforts requires a tremendous amount of outlay by both government and corporate entities, something that isn't well received in the plutocratic circles. Nope, better to go with nukes, it is more profitable.

Nuclear waste is a ticking time bomb just waiting to go off. Dumping the shit in a deep hole doesn't work, not even Yucca Mountain. But we're apparently going to go through with it anyway, even though dye tests have proven that nuclear contamination can go from Yucca Mt. to the Las Vegas water supply in under three weeks.

Sorry , but nuclear isn't the way to go. But sadly, our govenmental leaders and the business community are once again engaged in short term thinking, the same sort of thinking that got us into this mess to begin with. If we truly want to become energy independent, and help the enviroment in addition, then nuke isn't the way to go. Best to go with renewable resources, wind, solar, biodiesel, biomass, etc.

[BlueEyedSon]

4. HEY WHO THE HECK ARE YOU CALLING HYSTERICAL!

:)

[MadHound]

5. ANYBODY WHO GOES AROUND YELLING THEIR HEAD OFF!!

;) back atcha!

[NYPagan]

3. I am perfectly happy with renewable resources, like solar and...

hydroelectric, why shoudl we use such dangerous energy like nuclear? Can't we all just get along with what we have now?

[Massacure]

6. What we have now is dirty and polluting.

Why should we dump our waste into the land, oceans, and atmosphere when we can make a waste product that is thousands of times smaller and know exactly where it is?

How many more people have died from coal power than from nuclear power in the U.S. and Europe?

Wind and Solar is all fine and dandy when it works. When...

[Salviati]

7. Because what we have now will not last forever...

Much of our energy is produced from non-renewable resources, like coal, oil, and gas powered electric plants. Renewables are great, and should be party of any solution, but from analysis that I've seen can't come close to supplying all of our power, even given substantial conservation efforts.

Plus, these renewable resources are not environmentally neutral either. Hydropower destroys lots of ecosystems, the river that's dammed up, the coastal wetland that's no longer getting renewed with silt, just look at the erosion of the Louisiana coastline. Plus, as far as hydropower goes, most of the low hanging fruit has already been tapped, there's not much room for growth. The manufacture of solar cells is a very messy operation that can't really be considered ecologically friendly. I can't help but wondering what effects on the weather truly large scale wind power would have.

The solution to meeting our energy needs is likely going to be a complex one, involving substantial improvements in conservation and efficiency, expansion of renewable resources where possible, and likely nuclear energy as well. What people need to do if they have concerns about it, is to learn about it, and make their concerns grounded in knowledge, rather than just blindly opposing it (not necessarily speaking specifically to you, just in general here :) ) So that these concerns can become part of the dialog, and their (legitimate) concerns can be addressed, not just ignored as obstructionism.