And now a public service market announcement (with the captioned title) from your friendly local mankind-hating envirofascist, courtesy of Dave Schwab of Green Change, who is apparently the author of the following missive that found its way into my email inbox:
President Obama has proposed a whopping $54 billion in loan guarantees for the construction of new nuclear power plants.
What does that mean? If the costly new nuclear plants aren't finished, then taxpayers cover the huge financial loss.
If they are built, then we're stuck with power plants that generate
overpriced electricity and create deadly radioactive waste that will
remain toxic for thousands of years.
Either way, the nuclear industry wins, and we lose.
Tell President Obama to stop the nuclear power boondoggle.
Nuclear power creates deadly radioactive waste, from the mining process
onwards. It's got a scary history: think Chernobyl and Three Mile
Just recently, a nuclear plant in Vermont was ordered shut down after
radioactive tritium, which is linked to cancer, leaked from the plant
into local water supplies.
Nuclear power is so financially risky that even Wall Street won't bet
on it. It's a public health and financial disaster waiting to happen.
Instead, our government should promote energy efficiency and a
decentralized power system based on safe, clean, renewable energy.
Tell President Obama today: don't risk our future with nuclear power subsidies!
Note that I strongly disagree that nuclear power presents serious health risks; it seems to me that the health hazards and risks from nuclear power activities are orders of magnitude less than those presented by coal and other fossil fuels. Nuclear "waste" has been well-managed, and is waste only because the government has stopped industry from re-using it as fuel in breeder reactors. So while I understand the "scary" nuclear power theme (a consequence of the massive and counterproductive role of government in developing and testing nuclear weapons), I think it is counterproductive.
I am in favor of nuclear power (though NOT in favor of subsidies), and believe we'd see alot more if coal was full-costed (it receives federal and state subsidies via licenses to mine, pollute the air and pollute land and water with wastes). I've blogged more on nuclear power here. As Cato's Jerry Taylor put it: Nuclear power is "solar power for conservatives" and needs "a policy of tough love".
However, I do feel strongly that we ought to encourage energy efficiency - by removing public utility power monopolies.
We ought likewise to eliminate subsidies for other types of power production, and instead let free markets and consumer and investor choice work their wonders.