… could mean many things. In this case, it means a documentary film, a little over an hour in length, which the Alliance to Halt Fermi 3 recommends highly. It’s not about nuclear energy. It’s about the possibility of replacing nuclear energy – and fossil fuel energy – with clean, safe and affordable renewable energy. You can watch it, for free, right here. Continue reading “The Future of Energy …”
As a 501C3 organization, ATHF3 is not going to endorse a presidential candidate, or any sort of candidate for office. That doesn’t mean we can’t tell you about those candidates’ positions on the issue of nuclear power.
Donald Trump, Republican Party; from http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/20/heres-where-the-2016-candidates-stand-on-nuclear-power/
The real estate mogul has made strong public statements supporting nuclear power, but tends to favor further development of natural gas.
In the aftermath of the 2011 Japan Fukushima nuclear disaster, Trump told Fox News “nuclear is a way we get what we have to get, which is energy.”
“I’m in favor of nuclear energy, very strongly in favor of nuclear energy,” Trump said. “If a plane goes down people keep flying. If you get into an auto crash people keep driving.”
The permitting process for nuclear power needs to be reformed, Trump explained. He qualified this statement saying “we have to be careful” because nuclear power “does have issues.” Trump specified that he favored the development of natural gas over nuclear energy in the same interview: “we’re the Saudi Arabia times 100 of natural gas, but we don’t use it.”
Hillary Clinton, Democratic Party; from http://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11548354/hillary-clintons-climate-and-energy-policies-explained
Another area where Clinton differs from Sanders is on the question of what to do with existing nuclear power plants. Sanders wants to deny their applications for renewed permits and let them shut down according to their original schedules. Clinton wants to keep them running.
“Existing nuclear power plants don’t just provide 20 percent of all electricity generation [in the US],” Houser [one of the campaign’s lead energy wonks] says, “they still provide 60 percent of all zero carbon power generation in the country.” Hitting America’s international climate targets, he says, in part means ensuring that “those existing nuclear power plants that are safe to operate stay online.”
Clinton also wants to increase investment in advanced nuclear power.
Bernie Sanders, Democratic Party; from http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-energy-policy/
Bernie has called for a moratorium on nuclear power plant license renewals in the United States. He believes that solar, wind, geothermal power, and energy efficiency are more cost-effective than nuclear plants, and that the toxic waste byproducts of nuclear plants are not worth the risks of the technology’s benefit. Ever the financial watchdog, Bernie has also questioned why the federal government invests billions into federal subsidies for the nuclear industry.
Jill Stein, Green Party; from http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Jill_Stein_Energy_+_Oil.htm
Q: Should the US replace oil & coal with alternatives?
A: Yes, but those alternatives should be renewable clean energy, not nuclear. Nuclear energy is dirty, dangerous and expensive, and should be precluded on all of those counts. The Fukushima [nuclear disaster] is the ongoing example. There is no safe nuclear energy. You can put in in someone else’s backyard or even on the other side of the world–but we’re all endangered by it. And we don’t need it: Renewables are less expensive. Nuclear power would never survive on a free open market. It can only survive with tens of billions $of taxpayer loan guarantees.
Gary Johnson, Libertarian Party; from http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm
We learn he “supports nuclear power” (in 2011).
From https://garyjohnson2016.com/issues/, the word “nuclear” does not appear. Apparently, he does not consider it to be much of an issue.
There are, at this time additional people seeking the nomination of the Green Party, and there are others seeking the nomination of the Libertarian Party. I believe the people chosen as examples are likely to be the actual nominees, and in any case I hope the examples given are sufficiently representative of their parties.
If you want to keep up with news about nuclear issues around the world, there’s no easier way to do it than to subscribe to No Nukes News. You can read the current issue online just by clicking on the link above. There’s a button to subscribe at the top of the page.
The newsletter is supported by the Ontario Clean Air Alliance. Consequently, you’ll see the newsletter has a section focusing on events and actions specific to Ontario. However, that in no way prevents their thorough gathering of nuclear news from around the world from being of great value.
I’ve been a subscriber for a while now, and I have not noticed any increase in spam in my email. It seems they do not sell email addresses for any commercial purpose.
The idea of “reprocessing” spent nuclear fuel has repeatedly been beaten to death in the United States, but its advocates keep trying to bring it back to life. Part of the latest attempt to animate this corpse is Michigan State Senate Resolution 164 of 2016. Continue reading “A Zombie Proposal in Michigan’s Legislature”
(Originally published April 16, 2016 on https://athf3.wordpress.com/)
As the Alliance To Halt Fermi-3 (ATHF3) enters its fifth year in 2016, we look back to 2015 as a significant and pivotal time for our organization. Continue reading “ATHF3 2015 Annual Report”
(Originally published March 28, 2016 on https://athf3.wordpress.com/)
If you do, you should consider how easy it would be for a small group to attack a nuclear power plant and cause a meltdown, and how horrible the consequences of that would be. Once you think of nearly 100 large reactors of the United States as nearly 100 targets, you see another reason to shut them all down before one of them shuts us down. Continue reading “Worry About Terrorists Much?”