Nothing proves the point better that these "605" meetings are a really bad idea than the fact that Duke and Progress have got nuclear power included as a "renewable" in S3. Good work INDY!
You could say these meetings are just an organized extension of the greater influence that utilities have in our legislature than do the plain facts, or our planet's future, or hard-working constituents.
Example: I sat in with my Senator and provided him research and chatted with him for 20 mins about the global warming profile of nuclear power but many months later he seemed to have been turned around.
Okay, major correction: This otherwise excellent article says "While nuclear energy emits little if any greenhouse gases, it generates radioactive waste..."
"Nuclear energy" is derived from a non-renewable mined source (uranium) which is intensively processed, and the overall emissions triggered by the operation of a Shearon Harris sized nuclear plant are almost the same as a similar sized coal plant, and some of the greenhouse gases emitted during fuel processing are far more dangerous than carbon dioxide (CO2).
The fact that CO2 doesn't come out of the cooling tower is not the point. At a relicensing meeting for the Harris plant (20 years premature by the way) Progress Energy employees were sporting stickers that actually said "Nuclear Stops Greenhouse Gases" er, well, no, it can't do that!
Nuclear power could be as safe as houses but it still wouldn't get us out of our carbon fix. In addition there wouldn't be enough uranium available globally to fuel thousands of new plants even if they could be built in time.
This is just a one-two scam. 1) to fill up any renewable portfolio percentage with nuclear plants the big utilities are planning to build anyway.
2)maybe to get whatever additional subsidies are going in addition to those they would already be getting. Oh and 3)maybe down the line suck up some NC Green Power money (which would also mean some people not signing up for it. (Have you?)
For better explanation of the entire nuclear fuel cycle, and its greenhouse gas emissions, and the limits of global uranium supply, go to www.feasta.org (an Irish sustainability conference group). Click on "Energy and Climate" and look for "Why Nuclear Power cannot be a Major Energy Source," by Dr. David Fleming. Or paste this link:
http://www.feasta.org/documents/energy/nuclear-power.htm
Re: “Insider "605" meetings shape laws”
Nothing proves the point better that these "605" meetings are a really bad idea than the fact that Duke and Progress have got nuclear power included as a "renewable" in S3. Good work INDY! You could say these meetings are just an organized extension of the greater influence that utilities have in our legislature than do the plain facts, or our planet's future, or hard-working constituents. Example: I sat in with my Senator and provided him research and chatted with him for 20 mins about the global warming profile of nuclear power but many months later he seemed to have been turned around. Okay, major correction: This otherwise excellent article says "While nuclear energy emits little if any greenhouse gases, it generates radioactive waste..." "Nuclear energy" is derived from a non-renewable mined source (uranium) which is intensively processed, and the overall emissions triggered by the operation of a Shearon Harris sized nuclear plant are almost the same as a similar sized coal plant, and some of the greenhouse gases emitted during fuel processing are far more dangerous than carbon dioxide (CO2). The fact that CO2 doesn't come out of the cooling tower is not the point. At a relicensing meeting for the Harris plant (20 years premature by the way) Progress Energy employees were sporting stickers that actually said "Nuclear Stops Greenhouse Gases" er, well, no, it can't do that! Nuclear power could be as safe as houses but it still wouldn't get us out of our carbon fix. In addition there wouldn't be enough uranium available globally to fuel thousands of new plants even if they could be built in time. This is just a one-two scam. 1) to fill up any renewable portfolio percentage with nuclear plants the big utilities are planning to build anyway. 2)maybe to get whatever additional subsidies are going in addition to those they would already be getting. Oh and 3)maybe down the line suck up some NC Green Power money (which would also mean some people not signing up for it. (Have you?) For better explanation of the entire nuclear fuel cycle, and its greenhouse gas emissions, and the limits of global uranium supply, go to www.feasta.org (an Irish sustainability conference group). Click on "Energy and Climate" and look for "Why Nuclear Power cannot be a Major Energy Source," by Dr. David Fleming. Or paste this link: http://www.feasta.org/documents/energy/nuclear-power.htm