on the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
March and rally on August 8, 2015 10:30 AM Bissell Park, Oak Ridge, Tenn. [See https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0120932,-84.2630897,18z?hl=en for location.]
About 1942, the U.S., Canada, and the U.K. produced a secret agreement and subsequently expanded it: to mine the uranium, build reactors to produce nuclear weapons material, expose humans and other life forms to ionizing radiation at whatever level necessary, produce, test, and use atomic weapons.
All other uses for nuclear reactors were an after thought and dependent on public funding and governmental indemnification of reactor owners; without which, no commercial reactor would have ever existed. Commercial reactors—-Watts Bar, TN—-produce nuclear weapons material today. The first purpose of Fermi 1 was to produce nuclear weapons material. Reactors and nuclear weapons are joined at the hip, spawning each other and an enormous legacy of high (lethal in minutes), mid and low level radionuclides; for which there is no solution except shield and monitor into eternity.
There is no safe level (National Academy of Sciences).
In 1945, 3 high level U.S. military commanders—-Generals Eisenhower and Lemay (Army Air Force) and Admiral Leahy (top military commander during WWII)—- opposed the use of the atomic bomb on Japan saying it was unnecessary and (Leahy) that it was immoral. Japan’s efforts to negotiate a surrender had been under way. General Lemay had said “there are no civilians in Japan” and had fire bombed Japanese population centers killing 900,000 civilians. Nonetheless, he said of atomic bombing of Japan, “It’s anticlimactic. The verdict is in”.
61 scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project to produce the atomic bomb opposed its use on Japan or other population centers. They were told by Secretary of State Byrne that this was about Russia, not Japan. President Truman had made the decision to use the atomic bomb.
General Groves, who oversaw the Manhattan Project, wanted a target that had not had any previous bombardment.
The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were listed as a test until 1998.
President John Kennedy was determined to end the threat of nuclear war and end the cold war. He achieved back channel communication and cooperation of Khrushchev and the support of Pope John the 23rd in avoiding nuclear war over the Cuba and Berlin crises. Steps were to be taken to achieve non-aligned or neutral status of other nations.
Kennedy said he knew he was a marked man and feared a coup but was determined in his efforts.The military was pushing hard for a first strike nuclear attack on Russia. Kennedy’s service to humanity was at the cost of his life. He clearly indicated that he understood that.
The Israeli Defense minister recently cited the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as precedent for action Israel might take. In the Desert Storm war, Israel had its nuclear missiles pointed at Iraq.
In a survey reported in 2012, 73% of Americans said they supported abolition of nuclear weapons. Asked a different question, 78% said nuclear weapons are necessary for security. But the reality is that nuclear weapons combine homicide and suicide in a single act. Humans are the only species that, at an accelerated pace, is fatally destroying its own nest and maintains the requisite circumstances for its own extermination.
The continuing disaster of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima and all of the nuclear reactor accidents on record and the development and testing of nuclear weapons, as well as “normal operation” of nuclear reactors have resulted in broad spectrum illness, morbidity and genetic mutations. In 2003, the European Committee on Radiation Risk estimated that there were 123,000,000 cancers with 61,000,000 deaths from nuclear weapons testing.
U.S. nuclear missiles remain on hair trigger alert and the U.S. has historically asserted a prerogative of first strike preemptive use under varying circumstances.
The U.S. remains determined to build a new uranium production facility at Oak Ridge with a capacity of 80 new nuclear warheads per year. For more on this: orepa.org For transportation to the August 8th event [from the Metro Detroit area]: Kim Joy Bergier: 2MISTBC@gmail.com Cell 248-515-2380.
Philip Berrigan subsumed all of the nuclear legacy in saying “I go to my death with the firm conviction that nuclear weapons are the scourge of the earth. To mine for them, manufacture them, deploy them, use them is a curse against God, the human family, and the earth itself.”
Vic Macks, Michigan Stop the Nuclear Bombs Campaign, Peace Action of Michigan, Alliance to Halt Fermi 3 vicmacks3@gmail.com
Article by Vic Macks; posted by Art Myatt
Showing posts with label anti-nuclear. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anti-nuclear. Show all posts
Thursday, June 18, 2015
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Fermi 3, Round 2
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has given DTE Electric (DTE) the license it needs in order to build Fermi 3. They plan to build this new nuclear reactor on the shore of Lake Erie adjacent to Fermi 2.
The Sierra Club along with the Alliance to Halt Fermi 3, Beyond Nuclear and other anti-nuclear groups, was opposed to this license. We delayed its issuance by more than 3 years. There are still open objections which should have been resolved before the NRC issued the license, but that part of the process is finished for practical purposes.
We're still opposed to Fermi 3. The grounds on which we continue to fight have now shifted to Michigan state government. In particular, DTE will need the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) to issue a "Certificate of Need" for "Construction Work in Progress." Once they have it, DTE can put an extra charge on the electric bill of every customer to cover the cost of building the reactor.
That cost is already estimated to be in the range of $7 billion to $15 billion. That would translate to an average cost of thousands of dollars (over a decade or more) on every electric bill in the DTE service area. Customers would be forced to pay for many years before a single watt of electricity is generated. DTE could make a profit on construction even if the reactor is never finished and never generates any electricity.
You may have heard that DTE does not actually plan to build Fermi 3. Don't believe it for a minute. If you were not planning to build something, would you spend $100 million developing the plans?
$100 million is DTE's number, not something made up for effect. They have already applied to the MPSC for "compensation" for $100 million to be added to their rate base.
We need to convince our state officials, both the elected ones and the appointed ones, that Fermi 3 is a bad idea. The facts are on our side. There are better - faster, cheaper, cleaner and safer - ways to generate electrical power in Michigan. If $7 billion to $15 billion were spent on solar and wind generation plus conservation and efficiency measures, we the people of Michigan would be much better off.
To start with, new electricity would start coming on-line in the first year, not in 10 years or 15 years or never. The new electricity would come with no danger of a meltdown. There would be no spent fuel and other radioactive waste to dispose of. There would be nothing spent on fuel that comes from far out of state. Finally, there would more jobs installing and servicing solar panels and wind turbines than there would be in reactor construction.
The problem, from DTE's point of view, is there would be less opportunity for them to profit, and definitely no guaranteed profit. The question is, what is the priority for our state government? Is it the people of the state, or DTE shareholders? That's the question we should put to the governor, our state legislators, and the members of the MPSC.
DTE did not ask for our permission to spend $100 million planning to build Fermi 3. We should not be forced to compensate them for it. We should certainly not be forced to pay for construction of an obsolete, dirty, dangerous and expensive nuclear reactor when so many better alternatives are available.
We don't have DTE's paid lobbyists on our side. We do have the ability to write letters - to the editor, to legislators and to the MPSC. We do have the ability to talk to our state elected officials - in Lansing and in their districts. We have the ability to bring up this issue to city councils and county commissions, even if all they can do is pass a resolution. We can certainly hold our own educational meetings to make the public aware.
We had better do all of these things, and more. Act now or pay later.
The Sierra Club along with the Alliance to Halt Fermi 3, Beyond Nuclear and other anti-nuclear groups, was opposed to this license. We delayed its issuance by more than 3 years. There are still open objections which should have been resolved before the NRC issued the license, but that part of the process is finished for practical purposes.
We're still opposed to Fermi 3. The grounds on which we continue to fight have now shifted to Michigan state government. In particular, DTE will need the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) to issue a "Certificate of Need" for "Construction Work in Progress." Once they have it, DTE can put an extra charge on the electric bill of every customer to cover the cost of building the reactor.
That cost is already estimated to be in the range of $7 billion to $15 billion. That would translate to an average cost of thousands of dollars (over a decade or more) on every electric bill in the DTE service area. Customers would be forced to pay for many years before a single watt of electricity is generated. DTE could make a profit on construction even if the reactor is never finished and never generates any electricity.
You may have heard that DTE does not actually plan to build Fermi 3. Don't believe it for a minute. If you were not planning to build something, would you spend $100 million developing the plans?
$100 million is DTE's number, not something made up for effect. They have already applied to the MPSC for "compensation" for $100 million to be added to their rate base.
We need to convince our state officials, both the elected ones and the appointed ones, that Fermi 3 is a bad idea. The facts are on our side. There are better - faster, cheaper, cleaner and safer - ways to generate electrical power in Michigan. If $7 billion to $15 billion were spent on solar and wind generation plus conservation and efficiency measures, we the people of Michigan would be much better off.
To start with, new electricity would start coming on-line in the first year, not in 10 years or 15 years or never. The new electricity would come with no danger of a meltdown. There would be no spent fuel and other radioactive waste to dispose of. There would be nothing spent on fuel that comes from far out of state. Finally, there would more jobs installing and servicing solar panels and wind turbines than there would be in reactor construction.
The problem, from DTE's point of view, is there would be less opportunity for them to profit, and definitely no guaranteed profit. The question is, what is the priority for our state government? Is it the people of the state, or DTE shareholders? That's the question we should put to the governor, our state legislators, and the members of the MPSC.
DTE did not ask for our permission to spend $100 million planning to build Fermi 3. We should not be forced to compensate them for it. We should certainly not be forced to pay for construction of an obsolete, dirty, dangerous and expensive nuclear reactor when so many better alternatives are available.
We don't have DTE's paid lobbyists on our side. We do have the ability to write letters - to the editor, to legislators and to the MPSC. We do have the ability to talk to our state elected officials - in Lansing and in their districts. We have the ability to bring up this issue to city councils and county commissions, even if all they can do is pass a resolution. We can certainly hold our own educational meetings to make the public aware.
We had better do all of these things, and more. Act now or pay later.
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
We Need the Energy
Is nuclear power a good idea? Well, that depends.
Utility companies operating nuclear power plants make the basic argument, "We need the energy." "We" in this context means "our society," or "our economy," or just "we, the people who use electricity." We need the energy.
Picture yourself coming home from work at the end of the day. Man or woman, it doesn't matter. Whichever gender you are, you may be tired from a full day of work, but still need energy to deal with ordinary household stuff - getting something to eat, fixing a leaky faucet, making sure the children do their homework, and so forth.
Well, here's a solution. Take a hit of cocaine. That will give you the energy to deal with a whole list of household items. Cocaine will actually work - in the short term.
In order to think it's a good idea, you have to ignore the long-term effects, and just focus on the short-term benefits. You need the energy; take cocaine. Don't think about consequences for next month or next year. Don't worry about making a habit of it, just get through the day.
That's exactly the sense in which nuclear power is cocaine for the electrical grid. Sure, there's the possibility of a meltdown, causing the permanent evacuation of hundreds of thousands of people - or millions, depending on which way the wind blows. Sure, there's no known solution for what to do with "spent fuel" and other highly radioactive waste. Maybe we can put off dealing with it for a century or so longer. (That's the actual summary of current nuclear industry recommendations for their toxic waste.)
Get energy now. Ignore long-term consequences. Pretend that someone will figure something out, so you don't have to worry about it now. Just get the damned energy you "need." if you actually accept all the consequences, maybe you'll figure out you don't really "need" energy that comes with all the risk of disaster.
The nuclear industry and their political servants will argue endlessly that "we need the energy." Well, do we? Do you accept that idea, or not? That's the fundamental question you have to answer for yourself.
Art Myatt
Utility companies operating nuclear power plants make the basic argument, "We need the energy." "We" in this context means "our society," or "our economy," or just "we, the people who use electricity." We need the energy.
Picture yourself coming home from work at the end of the day. Man or woman, it doesn't matter. Whichever gender you are, you may be tired from a full day of work, but still need energy to deal with ordinary household stuff - getting something to eat, fixing a leaky faucet, making sure the children do their homework, and so forth.
Well, here's a solution. Take a hit of cocaine. That will give you the energy to deal with a whole list of household items. Cocaine will actually work - in the short term.
In order to think it's a good idea, you have to ignore the long-term effects, and just focus on the short-term benefits. You need the energy; take cocaine. Don't think about consequences for next month or next year. Don't worry about making a habit of it, just get through the day.
That's exactly the sense in which nuclear power is cocaine for the electrical grid. Sure, there's the possibility of a meltdown, causing the permanent evacuation of hundreds of thousands of people - or millions, depending on which way the wind blows. Sure, there's no known solution for what to do with "spent fuel" and other highly radioactive waste. Maybe we can put off dealing with it for a century or so longer. (That's the actual summary of current nuclear industry recommendations for their toxic waste.)
Get energy now. Ignore long-term consequences. Pretend that someone will figure something out, so you don't have to worry about it now. Just get the damned energy you "need." if you actually accept all the consequences, maybe you'll figure out you don't really "need" energy that comes with all the risk of disaster.
The nuclear industry and their political servants will argue endlessly that "we need the energy." Well, do we? Do you accept that idea, or not? That's the fundamental question you have to answer for yourself.
Art Myatt
Thursday, January 15, 2015
Open Letter to the Michigan Public Service Commission
In January of 2007, the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) issued a report with the title "Michigan's 21st Century Electric Energy Plan." This report is still (in January 2015) available on their website at http://www.dleg.state.mi.us/mpsc/electric/capacity/energyplan/index.htm. In it, they predict that demand for grid electricity in Michigan should grow at an average rate of 1.3% per year from 2006 through 2025.
If in fact demand had grown as predicted, in 2013, it would have been for approximately 123,000 Million KW-hr total for the year. In reality, demand for 2013 was around 104,000 Million KW-hr, less than the total for 2007. Actual demand for 2013 was short of predicted demand by roughly 19,000 Million KW-hr. From 2007 through 2013, demand did not grow at all. In fact, it declined, though not in a smooth fashion.
The actual pattern of Michigan's electrical demand from 2000 through 2007 was a growth trend, though not a smooth one. Some years were down; some, up. If the numbers are plotted on a graph, the trend for this period is clearly up. The MPSC prediction of continued growth was simply a projection of the recent trend into the near future. However, the financial crisis of 2008 broke a lot of trends, including that for Michigan's electrical demand.
In 2008, demand dipped. Then in 2009, when the entire year was affected by the recession, demand dipped sharply, by an additional 7«%. Since then, demand recovered to a level between the 2007 peak and the 2009 low point. For 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 (the last year for which we have data), it has been essentially flat, at 104,000 Million KW-hr plus or minus 1%. If the current flat trend is the new normal, the gap between expected demand (according to the 2007 plan) and actual demand will grow larger and larger.
In the year following the MPSC study, DTE Energy proposed to build Fermi 3, a new nuclear reactor to be located adjacent to their existing Fermi 2 reactor. Their original schedule called for Fermi 3 to be producing power by 2025. In their Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), they relied on the 2007 MPSC projection for future electrical demand. They said that, by 2025, the generating capacity of Fermi 3 would be needed to meet that demand.
Gross divergence between actual demand and MPSC projected demand was pointed out in public comments on the Draft EIS. In the final EIS, it was admitted that the MPSC study was not an accurate prediction. However, DTE Energy argued that the general idea of increased demand was still valid because demand could still reasonably be expected to increase in the region. This supposed validation is just nonsense.
We have data, supplied by the federal Energy Information Administration (EIA), not just for the region but for the entire United States. Demand for electricity in the entire country followed the same pattern as described for Michigan. There was a trend of growth from 2000 through 2007; a decline in 2008, a sharp dip for 2009, a recovery to less than the 2007 peak in 2010, and flat plus or minus 1% of the average value through 2013. The sharp decline for 2009 was a bit more than 4% for the country as a whole, not so severe as Michigan's 7-1/2% decline.
At a utilization factor of 90% (meaning it would run at full output 90% of the time), Fermi 3 would have an annual output of about 12,000 Million KW-hr. Recall that actual demand for 2013 was already 19,000 Million KW-hr less than the projected demand , and that discrepancy is likely to be much larger by 2025.
It is clear that the capacity of Fermi 3 is not - repeat, not - actually needed to meet foreseeable electrical demand in Michigan. Regardless, DTE Energy will soon be applying to the MPSC for a "Certificate of Need" for Fermi 3.
If this Certificate of Need is granted, then DTE Energy will be able to significantly raise the rates for electricity for everyone in the DTE service area. They will then be allowed to charge for "Construction Work in Progress" for as long as it might take to build the un-needed Fermi 3 reactor. This increase is expected to amount to $5,000 - $10,000 per household in the next ten years, and more if construction takes longer.
If this amount of money were instead spent on solar panels over the same ten years, every household in the service area could have several thousand watts of solar panels installed. There would be tens of thousands more local jobs in installation. There would be no danger from handling Fermi 3's radioactive fuel rods, new or spent. There would be no danger of a meltdown - at least from an unbuilt Fermi 3. (Fermi 2 could still have a meltdown.)
Even with safety considerations put completely aside, there is no need - as DTE Energy and the MPSC defined need - to build Fermi 3. At the very least, the MPSC should deny a Certificate of Need until it comes up with a new and more realistic plan for Michigan's 21st Century electricity. The best case would be if DTE Energy never gets a Certificate of Need for Fermi 3.
[Permission is hereby granted to anyone to republish this open letter, so long as it is republished in its entirety, including this notice, and the source is credited.]
Art Myatt
If in fact demand had grown as predicted, in 2013, it would have been for approximately 123,000 Million KW-hr total for the year. In reality, demand for 2013 was around 104,000 Million KW-hr, less than the total for 2007. Actual demand for 2013 was short of predicted demand by roughly 19,000 Million KW-hr. From 2007 through 2013, demand did not grow at all. In fact, it declined, though not in a smooth fashion.
The actual pattern of Michigan's electrical demand from 2000 through 2007 was a growth trend, though not a smooth one. Some years were down; some, up. If the numbers are plotted on a graph, the trend for this period is clearly up. The MPSC prediction of continued growth was simply a projection of the recent trend into the near future. However, the financial crisis of 2008 broke a lot of trends, including that for Michigan's electrical demand.
In 2008, demand dipped. Then in 2009, when the entire year was affected by the recession, demand dipped sharply, by an additional 7«%. Since then, demand recovered to a level between the 2007 peak and the 2009 low point. For 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 (the last year for which we have data), it has been essentially flat, at 104,000 Million KW-hr plus or minus 1%. If the current flat trend is the new normal, the gap between expected demand (according to the 2007 plan) and actual demand will grow larger and larger.
In the year following the MPSC study, DTE Energy proposed to build Fermi 3, a new nuclear reactor to be located adjacent to their existing Fermi 2 reactor. Their original schedule called for Fermi 3 to be producing power by 2025. In their Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), they relied on the 2007 MPSC projection for future electrical demand. They said that, by 2025, the generating capacity of Fermi 3 would be needed to meet that demand.
Gross divergence between actual demand and MPSC projected demand was pointed out in public comments on the Draft EIS. In the final EIS, it was admitted that the MPSC study was not an accurate prediction. However, DTE Energy argued that the general idea of increased demand was still valid because demand could still reasonably be expected to increase in the region. This supposed validation is just nonsense.
We have data, supplied by the federal Energy Information Administration (EIA), not just for the region but for the entire United States. Demand for electricity in the entire country followed the same pattern as described for Michigan. There was a trend of growth from 2000 through 2007; a decline in 2008, a sharp dip for 2009, a recovery to less than the 2007 peak in 2010, and flat plus or minus 1% of the average value through 2013. The sharp decline for 2009 was a bit more than 4% for the country as a whole, not so severe as Michigan's 7-1/2% decline.
At a utilization factor of 90% (meaning it would run at full output 90% of the time), Fermi 3 would have an annual output of about 12,000 Million KW-hr. Recall that actual demand for 2013 was already 19,000 Million KW-hr less than the projected demand , and that discrepancy is likely to be much larger by 2025.
It is clear that the capacity of Fermi 3 is not - repeat, not - actually needed to meet foreseeable electrical demand in Michigan. Regardless, DTE Energy will soon be applying to the MPSC for a "Certificate of Need" for Fermi 3.
If this Certificate of Need is granted, then DTE Energy will be able to significantly raise the rates for electricity for everyone in the DTE service area. They will then be allowed to charge for "Construction Work in Progress" for as long as it might take to build the un-needed Fermi 3 reactor. This increase is expected to amount to $5,000 - $10,000 per household in the next ten years, and more if construction takes longer.
If this amount of money were instead spent on solar panels over the same ten years, every household in the service area could have several thousand watts of solar panels installed. There would be tens of thousands more local jobs in installation. There would be no danger from handling Fermi 3's radioactive fuel rods, new or spent. There would be no danger of a meltdown - at least from an unbuilt Fermi 3. (Fermi 2 could still have a meltdown.)
Even with safety considerations put completely aside, there is no need - as DTE Energy and the MPSC defined need - to build Fermi 3. At the very least, the MPSC should deny a Certificate of Need until it comes up with a new and more realistic plan for Michigan's 21st Century electricity. The best case would be if DTE Energy never gets a Certificate of Need for Fermi 3.
[Permission is hereby granted to anyone to republish this open letter, so long as it is republished in its entirety, including this notice, and the source is credited.]
Art Myatt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)