Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama's energy plan is wrong on offshore drilling, Clean Coal, and nuclear safety

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-17-10 05:26 PM
Original message
Obama's energy plan is wrong on offshore drilling, Clean Coal, and nuclear safety
Published on Monday, May 17, 2010 by The Rutland Herlad (Vt.)

Tritium Leak Poses Question for Integrity of NRC

by Susan Smallheer

BRATTLEBORO - A former Nuclear Regulatory Commission official now working for the Union of Concerned Scientists said that the NRC was a "lapdog" of the nuclear industry and wasn't enforcing its own regulations when it came to "unmonitored and uncontrolled" radioactive tritium leaks.

David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer who at one time was a member of the Vermont Public Oversight Panel, told the annual meeting of the New England Coalition late Saturday that the NRC could have fined Entergy Nuclear $140,000 a day for every day it leaked tritium and other radioactive substances into the groundwater and ground, but it didn't.

Lochbaum said based on Entergy's own estimate of 90 days of uncontrolled and unmonitored releases, the NRC could have fined Entergy $12.6 million for the Vermont Yankee tritium leak alone.

In some cases, Lochbaum said, nuclear plants have leaks for years, not months in Yankee's case.

In fact, he said, virtually every commercial reactor in the country was leaking tritium, not the two-dozen plus number usually used by the NRC. He said he compiled his list of leaking reactors based on the NRC's own documents.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/05/17-2
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
orwell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-17-10 05:48 PM
Response to Original message
1. So what is it right on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-17-10 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. 'Clean' Coal? Don't Try to Shovel That
Instead of pushing for more offshore drilling, coal, and nuclear, Obama should have just concentrated on energy efficiency, conservation, and green technologies development.

From 2008:

'Clean' Coal? Don't Try to Shovel That

By Jeff Biggers
Sunday, March 2, 2008

Every time I hear our political leaders talk about "clean coal," I think about Burl, an irascible old coal miner in West Virginia. After 35 years underground, he struggled to conjure enough breath to match his storytelling verve, as if the iron hoops of a whiskey barrel had been strapped around his lungs. In 1983, during my first visit to Appalachia as a young man, Burl rolled up his pants and showed me the leg that had been mangled in a mining accident. The scars snaked down to his ankles.

"My grandpa barely survived an accident in the mines in southern Illinois," I told him. "He had these blue marks and bits of coal buried in his face."

"Coal tattoo," Burl wheezed. "Don't let anyone ever tell you that coal is clean."

Clean coal: Never was there an oxymoron more insidious, or more dangerous to our public health. Invoked as often by the Democratic presidential candidates as by the Republicans and by liberals and conservatives alike, this slogan has blindsided any meaningful progress toward a sustainable energy policy.

Democrats excoriated President Bush last month when he released a budget calling for more -- billions more -- in funds to reduce carbon emissions from coal-burning power plants to create "clean coal." But hardly a hoot could be heard about his proposed cuts to more practical investments in solar energy, hydrogen fuel and home energy efficiency.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903390.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-17-10 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. "energy efficiency, conservation, and green technologies development"
Absolutely - and put a big ol' tax on gas to support green technologies development so people will stop driving those gas-guzzling idiot machines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jtrockville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-17-10 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
2. Coal is FILTHY.
Why are we subsidizing these filthy fuels (like coal and oil) when the industries are making record profits?
And why are we subsidizing nuclear? No insurance company in the world will underwrite these reactors. Why should we?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-17-10 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
4. Unless we have strong regulations and strong government agencies that enforce them, we will have BP
disasters again and again. If it is a nuclear disaster, we will be in deep shite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blueworld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-17-10 06:14 PM
Response to Original message
5. This is vitally important info you've posted. Thanks sincerely. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greencharlie Donating Member (827 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-17-10 06:19 PM
Response to Original message
6. well...
we could all go back to living in caves??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-17-10 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. keep coddling oil companies and we will
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulka38 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-17-10 06:39 PM
Response to Original message
7. I have no faith that a government under the current conditions
in Washington can adequately regulate these industries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-17-10 07:07 PM
Response to Original message
8. Obama's "energy plan" is cynical politics...
A step above Cheney's "energy plan" - but not even close to what we need.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Stalwart71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-17-10 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
9. Very disappointed in Obama's decision on this. I just hope he know what he's doing. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ljm2002 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-17-10 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Unfortunately it doesn't look like he knows what he's doing...
...what it looks like, is that he takes people's word for things about which he himself is not that well informed ("It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced.").

His conciliatory nature does not allow him to be skeptical of such claims. If he were more experienced at this level of politics, he would understand how self-serving these industries are, and how easily they mislead, and he would not be so quick to accept their assessments.

But then again, maybe the White House is just a stepping stone to a secure and monied future. I don't know. Sorry to be so cynical but silver linings are getting harder and harder to find these days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-18-10 08:50 AM
Response to Original message
13. k&r nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-18-10 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
14. Obama's energy plan is supported by these progressives
Progressives for coal

Senator Tom Harkin
Senator Al Franken
Senator Roland Burris
Senator Byron Dorgan
Senator Herb Kohl
Senator Russell Feingold
Senator Kent Conrad
Senator Michael Bennet
Senator Amy Klobuchar
Senator Mark Udall
Senator Robert Byrd
Senator Cark Levin
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Sherrod Brown

This was pointed out last year, and I bet that very few people called these Senators.

The current climate bill will have a tough time passing, but it will not pass without the support of the above Senators.

Of course, urgency aside, Democrats could put off the climate bill for another decade or two.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-18-10 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. If we pass this one then that's what we'll probably be doing.
A price on carbon is important but not much benefit when carbon usage is actually encouraged to increase via incentives.

Where do the reductions come from?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-18-10 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. I encourage you to go to the link that ProSense posted
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-11-12-fourteen-democratic-senators-stick-up-for-coal

14 Democratic senators affirmed their allegiance to the profits of polluting industry at the expense of the health and jobs of their constituents. In a letter to Senate leaders, a bloc of senators with powerful coal interests in their states called for "fair emissions allowances in climate change legislation." Their definition of "fair," unfortunately, turns out to be full taxpayer subsidies for global warming polluters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-18-10 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. You didn't read the story on link you posted, did you? It is a devastating critique!
Here is the story at your link?

Thursday, 14 Democratic senators affirmed their allegiance to the profits of polluting industry at the expense of the health and jobs of their constituents. In a letter to Senate leaders, a bloc of senators with powerful coal interests in their states called for "fair emissions allowances in climate change legislation." Their definition of "fair," unfortunately, turns out to be full taxpayer subsidies for global warming polluters. They call for the free allocation of pollution permits to electric utilities to be distributed "fully based on emissions":

<snip>

The signatories on the letter defending coal-heavy polluters are Senators Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Roland Burris (D-Ill.), Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Mark Udall (D-Colo), Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio).

Their demand is a basic violation of a core principle of environmental economics -- that companies should pay based on their pollution. The transition-period formula in the House bill, Waxman-Markey, and the current Senate legislation, Kerry-Boxer, at least distributes the free permits based 50 percent on electricity production. This formula was negotiated with the U.S. Climate Action Partnership and has received the endorsement of the Edison Electric Institute, the largest lobbying organization for the nation's utilities. In contrast, President Obama called for a full auction of pollution permits to avoid rewarding polluters at the taxpayers' expense, instead dedicating the revenues to creating jobs, lowering taxes on the middle class, and building a clean energy economy.

The argument that the most "fair and effective," "appropriate and equitable" way to help the constituents of their states is to increase subsidies to coal-powered utilities is frankly absurd.

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-11-12-fourteen-democratic-senators-stick-up-for-coal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-18-10 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
15. K & R. For the evidence, just look at the pictures from the GULF.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-18-10 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
19. All energy sources can be considered "dirty"
Solar panels are made out of chemicals and oil products and had to be produced while polluting the air.

Wind turbines are made of metal, which had to be produced by energy sources that polluted the air to produce.

On and on you can go.

Then all sources our energy have to be transferred via transmission lines, which are produced with materials that pollute the air and use oil byproducts to make.

These transmission lines emit varying degrees of electromagnetic radiation that can be harmful if you are standing next to the poles. These lines then are distributed in hubs that eventually go into your home.

If you stick your finger in a socket while standing in a pot of water, you are electrocuted.

But I digress...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC