Nuclear Power least subsidized “Green Energy”
The Wall Street Journal has an article today about how much the government subsidizes different energy sources. The kicker was just how much green energy was costing the American taxpayer.
Some clarity comes from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent federal agency that tried to quantify government spending on energy production in 2007. The agency reports that the total taxpayer bill was $16.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and the like. That’s double in real dollars from eight years earlier, as you’d expect given all the money Congress is throwing at “renewables.” Even more subsidies are set to pass this year.
An even better way to tell the story is by how much taxpayer money is dispensed per unit of energy, so the costs are standardized. For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and “clean coal” $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59.
I personally find that absolutely outrageous that the government would be wasting that much money on wind, solar, and clean coal when nuclear power is so “cheap” in comparison. Even the founder of Greenpeace thinks nuclear energy is “green” so why aren’t we focusing on building more nuclear power plants?
I mean, if the government is going to be hellbent of subsidizing something it might as well be something that we can at least get a good return off of.
«The quantity of radioactivity, which is present in a reactor, is larger than the quantity of radioactivity spread by a nuclear bomb – significantly larger.», (Prof. Dr. C. F. von Weizsäcker, nuclear physicist)
«Since a reactor in one day produces as much radioactivity as a 50-kt nuclear explosion, and fuel in a reactor has typically been there for an average of two years, a typical nuclear reactor has in its core the long-lived radioisotopes from 30 megatons of fission.», Prof. Dr. Richard L. Garwin (nuclear physicist), »Can the World Do Without Nuclear Power?«, Nuclear Control Institute, 9.4.2001
Please inform the public regarding the «Climatic Change caused by Radioactivity»:
• A nuclear power plant produces each day the same amount of radioactivity than 4 nuclear bombs the size of Hiroshima!
• The 5 Swiss nuclear power plants contain radioactivity approximately the size of 10’000 Hiroshima nuclear bombs! This in the production of 2 years.
This inconceivable amount of radioactivity – this «Climatic Change caused by Radioactivity» – threatens and destroys the foundations of life for our and all future generations. The physical half-lives are completely irrelevant, as they are eternal from a human perspective. Also irrelevant is the calculated probability for accidents, as the potential for damage is far too gigantic. The nuclear physicist Garwin says: «Reactor accidents … too horrible to think about.» A trustworthy banker would advice: «We do not buy these shares» and insurances don’t cover this risk anyway.
Upon the election of Barack Obama, it was the German politician Hans Dietrich Genscher, who reminded strongly and multiple times to the global top priority: The complete abolition of all nuclear weapons!
Beside the financial crises and despite the «Climatic Change caused by CO2», we should not forget this. And we shouldn’t forget as well, that this – the abolition of all nuclear weapons – finally is only possible together with the abolition of all nuclear power plants, therefore the switch to Natural Power (electricity from renewable energies) is a pre-requisite. The nuclear conflict in Iran is one but not the only example of this undividable relation between nuclear weapons and nuclear power.