[GPSCC-chat] Fwd: Fwd: Stop nuke subsidies: Help us get this press release to every member of Congress

[Wes Rolley]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Fwd: Stop nuke subsidies: Help us get this press release to 
every member of Congress
Date: 	Mon, 20 Sep 2010 12:54:00 -0400
From: 	Lorna Salzman <lsalzman1 at verizon.net>
To: 	lsalzman1 at verizon.net



This is really easy to do & needs widespread support. Please contact 
your congressperson by clicking on the link
Begin forwarded message:

> *From:* Nuclear Information and Resource Service <nirsnet at nirs.org 
> <mailto:nirsnet at nirs.org>>
> *Date:* September 17, 2010 2:01:41 PM EDT
> *To:* chair at ecologyparty.org <mailto:chair at ecologyparty.org>
> *Subject:** Stop nuke subsidies: Help us get this press release to 
> every member of Congress*
> *Reply-To:* nirsnet at nirs.org <mailto:nirsnet at nirs.org>
>
> org2.democracyina/54512849.jpg
> 6930 Carroll Avenue, #340, Takoma Park, MD 20912; 301-270-6477; 
> nirsnet at nirs.org <mailto:nirsnet at nirs.org>; www.nirs.org 
> <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=RqOfTXFLccEcz6Vt9pprFtIcYFDo6ES6>
> *ACT NOW: HELP US GET THIS PRESS RELEASE TO EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS!
>
> LET'S STOP ALL TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES TO THE NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY!*
>
>
> September 17, 2010
>
> Dear Friends,
>
> Yesterday, in Washington, DC, the Massachusetts of Technology released 
> an "expert" study titled "The Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle."
>
> On the plus side, the study concluded that there is no need to set up 
> an expensive and dirty reprocessing infrastructure right now. We could 
> have told them that and saved them a lot of money...
>
> *But the study also recommended that the government accelerate and 
> increase the amount of taxpayer subsidies going to new nuclear reactor 
> construction. The study says taxpayers should quickly fund 7-10 new 
> reactors--at today's prices, that could be anywhere from $50-100 billion!*
>
> But MIT didn't recognize that because, despite being an "expert" 
> study, they used a cost estimate for new reactor construction that 
> hasn't been valid for years.
>
> So yesterday, we issued a press release, which we've pasted in below, 
> that points out that MIT's cost estimate is simply not credible, how 
> it is wrong, and why (and it might not surprise you to learn that 
> MIT's study was funded by the nuclear industry).
>
> Despite this blatant flaw in the study, the nuclear industry and 
> Department of Energy will be using it to make a case in Congress for 
> more government loans to wealthy nuclear companies. This could still 
> come up this month, in the form of a Continuing Resolution, or in a 
> lame-duck session after the election, in the form of an omnibus 
> appropriations bill or some other legislation.
>
> Since 2008, with your help, we have stopped them from spending more 
> money on new reactors.* Can you step up again now, and help us get 
> this press release to every member of Congress?* *You can do so here.* 
> <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=bIVPgivmoqLGQhA7JurCsYHaUC0LKSUW>
>
> It's important that every member of Congress know the facts about 
> nuclear subsidies--and this MIT study is not based on facts. But we 
> can't count on the media to help us get out the facts--indeed, while 
> this release went directly to more than 500 energy and environmental 
> reporters, we haven't received a single media call on this press release!
>
> We don't have a fax program that lets us reach all 535 members of 
> Congress, and most members of Congress use systems that prevent people 
> with zip codes outside of their states or district from sending them 
> e-mail messages, so we can't reach them directly that way either.
>
> *But you can! And you--the people on this list--are in every state and 
> every Congressional District in the country! So please,* *go here to 
> send this press release* 
> <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=MuU9VijaO11IllOz2FJsj4HaUC0LKSUW>* 
> and a brief note expressing your opposition to nuclear bailouts to 
> your Senators and Representative.*
>
> We also urge you to tell your local media about this release. It's 
> online here, and if you want a formatted pdf copy, just send a quick 
> note to us at nirsnet at nirs.org <mailto:nirsnet at nirs.org>.
>
> Thank you for your help, and a_ special thank you_ to everyone who 
> contributed online or mailed us a check in our recent paperless 
> fundraising drive! It's been an experiment and while it's worked 
> fairly well, we still haven't received as many responses, or as much 
> money, as our usual snail mail appeals. So we're continuing it this 
> month. If you weren't able to contribute last month, or just didn't 
> get around to it, please make whatever donation you can here 
> <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=W3rhrXPPq8Sp84PWzubWgtIcYFDo6ES6>. 
> Or, you can send a check to us at NIRS, 6930 Carroll Avenue, #340, 
> Takoma Park, MD 20912. Or you can simply call us at 301-270-6477 and 
> make a credit card donation over the phone if you'd prefer. Whichever 
> way you donate, thank you!
>
> And thanks for all you do,
>
> Michael Mariotte
> Executive Director
> Nuclear Information and Resource Service
> nirsnet at nirs.org <mailto:nirsnet at nirs.org>
> www.nirs.org 
> <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=l8gi%2BSCfOJ4RklOfam%2BKcdIcYFDo6ES6>
>
>
> *INDUSTRY-FUNDED MIT STUDY ON NUCLEAR FUTURE SUFFERS FROM 
> UNSUPPORTABLE REACTOR CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
>
> RECOMMENDATION FOR MORE HIGH-RISK TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES TO NUCLEAR 
> INDUSTRY DOESN'T HOLD UP UNDER SCRUTINY*
>
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE        Contact: Michael Mariotte
> September 16, 2010      301-270-6477
>
>
> An MIT study titled "The Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle" released 
> today in Washington uses an unsupportable reactor construction cost 
> estimate, undercutting its recommendation that taxpayer subsidies for 
> new nuclear reactors should be increased and accelerated.
>
> "Congress would be ill-advised to follow the MIT recommendation," said 
> Michael Mariotte, executive director of Nuclear Information and 
> Resource Service (NIRS), "since the study relies on a construction 
> cost estimate for new reactors that is 50% or more below current cost 
> estimates. Reliance on such an estimate would turn a high-risk 
> taxpayer loan into an exorbitant-risk taxpayer bailout for wealthy 
> nuclear power companies. Congress needs real numbers when it considers 
> spending taxpayer money, not nuclear industry fantasies."
>
> The MIT recommendation, which calls for an acceleration and expansion 
> of taxpayer subsidies for the first 7-10 new reactors, is based on an 
> estimated construction cost of $4,000/kilowatt, or about $4 billion 
> for a 1,000 Megawatt reactor.
>
> "This is a remarkable flaw from what is touted as an expert study," 
> said Mariotte. "Even a cursory review of the literature finds that no 
> new U.S. nuclear reactor proposal is coming in at $4,000/kw," said 
> Mariotte. "The real-world estimates are ranging from 
> $6,000-9,000/kw--or 50% to more than 100% higher than MIT's study 
> asserts. Based on those kinds of estimates, it would make no sense for 
> taxpayers to support the nuclear industry at all. New reactors won't 
> be economic, and the taxpayer loans would be far too risky."
>
> Mariotte cited several examples to refute MIT's cost figures:
>
> *Calvert Cliffs-3 is estimated to cost "about $10 billion" according 
> to testimony from Constellation Energy CEO Mayo Shattuck before the 
> Maryland Public Service Commission in March 2009. That's more than 
> $6,000/kw for that 1600 MW reactor.
>
> *PPL estimates, on its website, that a reactor identical to Calvert 
> Cliffs-3, would cost $13-15 billion, or about $8,000-9,000/kw 
> (including financing costs). http://www.bellbend.com/faqs.htm
>
> *A September 2008 estimate filed with the Florida Public Service 
> Commission put the proposed Turkey Point reactors at $8,200/kw.
>
> *The Southern Company's Vogtle reactors in Georgia-slated to be the 
> first recipients of taxpayer loans to support their construction-are 
> currently estimated at about $6,200/kw.
>
> Wall Street appears not to accept the MIT figures either:
>
> *An October 2007 report from Moody's Investor Service predicted costs 
> of $5-6,000/kw. Less than a year later, in May 2008, Moody's predicted 
> costs "?potentially reaching over $7,000/kw."
>
> *Standard & Poor's, quoting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
> in October 2008, predicted costs ranging from $5-8,000/kw.
>
> "The MIT study correctly notes that 'nuclear electricity costs are 
> driven by high up-front capital costs,' whereas natural gas and coal 
> costs are more dependent on fuel costs," said Mariotte, "thus, it 
> vastly underestimates nuclear capital costs and presents a grossly 
> misleading picture of the costs of electricity to the consumer if 
> nuclear reactors are built, as well as understating the risk of 
> nuclear loans to the taxpayer."
>
> Mariotte noted that the study only compared nuclear costs to natural 
> gas and coal, and not to alternatives like wind power, solar power, 
> geothermal and energy efficiency technologies. Some of these 
> alternatives, like wind and energy efficiency, are already much 
> cheaper than nuclear power and solar is rapidly declining in price 
> while increasing in its efficiency. Earlier this week, the Department 
> of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory released a report 
> detailing the potential of offshore wind resources for the U.S., 
> finding that offshore wind alone could generate more than four times 
> the entire current electrical demand in the U.S. 
> http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/45889.pdf
>
> Mariotte pointed out that the MIT study acknowledges "generous 
> financial support from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) 
> and from Idaho National Laboratory, the Nuclear Energy Institute, 
> Areva, GEHitachi, Westinghouse, Energy Solutions, and Nuclear 
> Assurance Corporation."
>
> "Areva, GEHitachi and Westinghouse are the three reactor vendors 
> hoping for taxpayer money to pay for their products," said Mariotte. 
> "It is at least suspicious that the study would support their aims 
> using a cost estimate that simply does not stand up to scrutiny."
>
> --30--
>
> Please note: NIRS never sells, rents, trades, or otherwise makes our 
> e-mail lists available to other organizations or individuals for any 
> reason. If you would like to unsubscribe to NIRS list, please go here 
> <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=VhGVmoIGMstREKMOqSzittIcYFDo6ES6>.
> Note: If you have any problem using our Democracy in Action system to 
> send your letter to Congress, please let us know at nirsnet at nirs.org 
> <mailto:nirsnet at nirs.org>. The good people at DIA are constantly 
> working to upgrade and improve the system, but glitches sometimes 
> occur. When they do, we want to know about them and we'll work with 
> DIA to fix them.
>

-- 

Lorna Salzman
www.lornasalzman.com
The struggle of Israel, even if they don't want to accept it, is the 
struggle of the world (Pilar Rahola, leftist Spanish politician and 
journalist)

Muslims to the world: Don't say we're violent or we'll kill you.

You can't defame a religion but you can kill in its name and go scot free.


ISLAM: Be afraid. Be very afraid.

"Modern science-based civilization is but a thin veneer over fundamental 
medieval notions divorced from empirical evidence" -  Andrew Glikson


"We are already fighting World War III and I am sorry to say we are 
winning. It is the war against the earth".....Raymond Dasmann


"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from 
religious conviction" (B. Pascal).

"If we don't change direction we'll end up where we're headed"

  Is it safer to ask for open mindedness among the victims of 
Islamofacism rather than its perpetrators?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20100920/6bb5c2dd/attachment.html>