Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (404058)	8/3/2008 7:03:35 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 1574848

Thursday, June 23, 2005 15:48 EDT While world burns, Democrats say no to nukes The McCain-Lieberman amendment to the energy bill, which would have instituted mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions, went down in defeat in the Senate yesterday. The defeat wasn't a surprise to anyone, including co-sponsor John McCain. What did seem surprising, at least on first blush, was that the amendment lost by a wider margin, 60-38, than it did in 2003, when it went down by a vote of 55-43. But before you blame the Republican majority in the Senate, note that six Republicans voted for the amendment this time, and 11 Democrats against it. Those 11 Democrats include four Democrats who voted for the amendment the first time around in 2003. What happened? Two words: nuclear subsidies, which might seem like a compromise to win Republican votes, but which succeeded in alienating a number of Democrats. "While I voted for a similar amendment in 2003, unfortunately, the current version of the amendment includes over $600 million in taxpayer subsidies for the creation of new nuclear power plants," Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold said in a statement. "The nuclear industry is a mature industry that does not need to be propped up by the taxpayers. Our nation faces an ever-growing budget deficit and we must be fiscally and environmentally responsible." Another vote switcher, California Democrat Barbara Boxer, said she voted against the ammendment this time because it included nuclear energy alongside wind and solar as sources of "clean" energy. "The nuclear industry is once again knocking on Uncle Sams door asking for federal subsidies to pad their bottom line," she said in a statement. "We should oppose the nuclear industrys latest effort to raid the public purse. Nuclear power is not the solution to climate change, and it is not 'clean.' The nuclear industry has not solved its waste and safety problems. By subsidizing the creation of new nuclear plants, we are condoning the creation of more waste and turning a blind eye to the hazards associated with nuclear power. . . . The nuclear industry has already benefited from $145 billion in federal subsidies over the last fifty years. Truly clean and renewable sources of energy, such as wind and solar, have received just $5 billion." Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, another Democrat who voted for the ammendment last time and against it this time, also objected to pork for nukes. "The nuclear issue is the sole reason we're not for it," said Allison Dobson, a spokesperson for Harkin. She cited ongoing concerns about nuclear waste -- Yucca Mountain, anyone? -- and the fact that nuclear power plants can be vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Instead, the Senate passed, 66-29, another amendment to the energy bill that relies on voluntary curbing of greenhouse gas emissions. The amendment, brought by Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, includes $2 billion over five years to support R&D for new technology to reduce greenhouse gases and tax incentives to use them. But lacking teeth, it could amount to nothing more than a lot of hot air as the world burns.

To: combjelly who wrote (404058)	8/3/2008 7:05:35 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574848

State Dems and Sierra Club urge retirement of California nuke plants The Sierra Club and the Environmental Caucus of the California Democratic Party have endorsed resolutions to bar the relicensing of nuclear power plants in the state. Sierra Club Logo > Santa Lucia Chapter P.O. Box 15755 > San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 (805) 543-8717 > www.santalucia.sierraclub.org October 5, 2005 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Andrew Christie, Sierra Club (805) 543-8717 David Weisman, Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility (805) 772-7077 State Dems and Sierra Club urge retirement of California nuke plants The Sierra Club and the Environmental Caucus of the California Democratic Party have endorsed resolutions to bar the relicensing of nuclear power plants in the state. The California Public Resources Code currently stipulates that no new nuclear facilities may be built in the state until and unless there exists a demonstrated technology or means for the permanent disposal of high-level nuclear waste. The Sierra Club's California-Nevada Regional Conservation Committee, meeting in San Luis Obispo on September 25, endorsed a resolution supporting amendment of the Public Resources Code to extend the construction prohibition to the re-licensing of currently operating nuclear power plants. The state Democratic Party's Environmental Caucus followed suit with a similar resolution on October 2. PG&E and Southern California Edison, operators of the Diablo Canyon and San Onofre nuclear power plants, the sites of the last four commercial nuclear reactors in California, have not yet applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for renewal of the current licenses for the plants. Relicensing would extend the operating lives of the plants by twenty years or more. The NRC has said that it expects all current reactors to apply for renewal. "Increased investment in clean power, in combination with energy efficiencies and conservation, will facilitate the shift to renewable energy sources in accordance with California's energy goals," said Karen Merriam, Chair of the Sierra Club's Santa Lucia Chapter in San Luis Obispo. "That can't happen while we are still throwing money at aging nuclear plants and bearing the increasing burden of indefinite storage of their waste." Both the San Onofre and Diablo Canyon Plants have recently applied to the Public Utilities Commission to replace failing steam generators at a cost of up to $800 million each. Rochelle Becker, executive director of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, welcomed the dual endorsement. "We will be asking lawmakers to introduce amending legislation in Sacramento next year that will restrict the production of high-level radioactive waste on California's coast to current license terms," she said. ###