South Carolina nuclear lobbyists held their hopes high this past week as members of the South Carolina House Agricultural Committee attempted to alter a renewable energy bill to define nuclear as a ‘renewable’ energy source. After much outrage over the ridiculousness of calling uranium (a finite resource that demands fossil-fuels intensive extraction and processing if it is to be utilized) a renewable energy source, the Ag Committee was pressed to change the wording from Renewable to “Clean”.
The new wording promised to secure loop-holes to make it easier for utility companies to meet future energy efficiency/clean energy standards. This excited the nuclear industry, especially after construction costs have sky-rocketed and caused at least one plant to cancel its plans in the state.
But none the less, even as our Nation’s presidential candidates continue to push the doublespeak rhetoric that calls for clean coal and safe nuclear solutions to our dangerous addictions to coal and nuclear, South Carolina House Representatives denied the proposed definition.
The decision came after an amendment was offered that appealed to House Representatives interest in growing a large renewable manufacturing industry in the state, by stating that it would be harder for entrepreneurs in the industry to find state and federal funding. The definition which included Nuclear as Renewable was shut-down with a solid 114-0 Vote!
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
Lurking behind the scenes of this ridiculous “nukes are renewable” debate in South Carolina was the idea of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel and using plutonium breeder reactors. Several mal-informed and brain washed (by Duke Energy?) representatives spoke up in favor of reprocessing every chance they got. Reprocessing dissolves spent reactor uclear fuel in acid, creating a sea of waste, and removes weapons-usable plutonium for stockpiling. The industry can only exist if propped up by big government. In the S.C, Bush and his Department of Energy is pursuing it through a program called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) and DOE has requested $302 million for this in Fiscal Year 2009. The DOE’s Savannah River Site in S.C. is a target for this insane GNEP program. While some call it recycling, that only applies in that pursuit of this program recycles money out of your pocket and right into that of the plutonium industry and political allies.
There’s enough uranium in the Earth to power civilization for billions of years, and it’s constantly brought to the surface and dissolved in seawater by cycles of erosion and uplift. There’s absolutely no shortage of fuel; it will last longer than the sun itself.
The only problem is waste, and how harmful is that? Seriously, compare the environmental impact of nuclear waste with the alternatives: coal power plant pollution and global warming. Which is worse?