Chernobyl Legacy narrated by Photo Journalist Paul FuscoWhen asked what kind of weapons World War III would be fought with, Albert Einstein replied:
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
Einstein was afraid of the nuclear age. But apparently the Mayor of Homestead is not. She gleefully endorsed 4 nuclear reactors in her hood today at a public hearing, with nary a concern for evacuation or plume movements. I read some old data online that said it could take 20 hours to evacuate Sanibel island with about 13,600 people. I was standing next to a Homeland security guy (listening to his phone conversation, of course). He asked someone on the line if something happened at the Nuke plant how many people would they would have to evacuate. When the person on the other end gave him an answer he said: "189,000 people? 36 hours? That is a shitload of time." Or was it a "shitload of people." No matter.
How Green Nuclear Power is, said the Mayor of Homestead. It is so clean and safe. What the hell was she talking about?
The county commission passed the Zoning change at the plant. The vote was 11 to 1. You can guess who the one was.
The only cheerful thought I am left with: The Mayor in Homestead lives so much closer to the plant than I do. I hope she has her supply of Iodide tablets and the cherry flavor liquid for her children and the children in her city. And, for being so flippant about the whole thing: I hope she gets stuck in plenty of traffic trying to escape from the plume if there is ever an evacuation. She should have been asking hard questions about evacuation, not playing booster for Florida Power and Light. I wish reality could wipe that beaming smile off that stupid face. It is going to give me nightmares.
I heard people at the hearing say they want to stop our dependence on foreign oil by switching to Nuclear Power. Well sell your SUV if you want to save oil. That is a lot safer way to save energy. Get some solar panels for your hot water heater. A lot can be done in our homes. Look at the photo on the right to see what a nuclear power plant can do.
This is serious business folks. These decisions should be made with great care and not by chamber of commerce folks. We cannot EVER get rid of spent fuel. A nuclear accident, although not the norm, can be catastrophic for the whole county. It must be part of the equation. We were lucky with Hurricane Andrew. Will we be lucky again?
A chamber woman said to me: "How are you going to get your power?" I don't know because the country has not invested any money in developing alternative energy sources. I just know I am not going to play Sophie's choice. Coal or dangerous, toxic waste producing, water guzzling Nuclear? Is that the best we can do?
And as Commissioner Katy Sorenson said at the hearing:
''Do we get one resource, energy, at the expense of another, water?''
Chernobyl Legacy narrated by Photo Journalist Paul Fusco
21 comments:
The plant will use up to 90 million gallons per day. An average person uses 100 gallons per day. That water use could supply 900,000 people a day with water.
there are a lot worse pictures online...I picked out some tame ones. go find your own. copy this link and paste
http://todayspictures.slate.com/inmotion/essay_chernobyl/
I watched some of the entries on that link you provided. I had to cry. I couldn't believe what I saw. I don't know whether to be mad at you or to thank you G.o.D.
Genious, you speak the truth. At least half of the Commission "torture" Chamber was filled with Perry Ellis suits. FPL execs, lobbyists and their contractors. You could almost feel the boot of "Ticker symbol:FPL" cracking the backs of democracy.
Not only would they strap the couple dozen billion dollar plant on the backs of the rate payers, but then they'd stick it to the public by forcing taxpayers to pay billions to build giant tunnel from Virginia Key to pump Miami-Dade's toilet water into their radioactive factory.
And with the $18.5 billion in federal loan guarantees for new nuke plants Domenici tucked into the new spending bill, there would be no way to stop them.
FPL cynically claims that they are building this monster to help stop global warming. Ironically, even if greenhouse gases stopped tomorrow, Turkey Point's reactors and spent fuel rods would still be surrounded by the rushing bay waters in a matter of decades.
Making nuclear power isn't clean. It's avery messy, complicated process with waste that doesn't go away. It also shifts attention away from what FPL should be pursuing -- solar. FPL is dragging their feet in the Sunshine State and everyone knows it -- especially the California-based solar companies. While California and Arizona have birthed the next great industry, Florida is playing shuffleboard and waiting for the early bird.
Why aren't FPL lobbyists filling up Commission Chambers to get the next big solar plant permitted? Why isn't FPL vigorously putting solar thermal water heaters on ratepayers roofs that would eliminate 20 percent of the electric load and elinate the need to build new plants? Why isn't FPL providing real incentives for efficiency? Why isn't FPL providing real incentives for photovoltaic cells on each ratepayer's roof top. It's not that solar doesn't work in Florida as FPL says with its nose lunging forward. The truth is that "Ticker symbol FPL" cares about one single thing: that more customers use more electricity.
To learn how nuclear power works, here's a basic primer.
http://www.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power.htm
And here's what the Union of Concerned Scientists thinks (hint: they don't like it.)
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/nuclear-power-and-climate.html
thank you anon for your post...and by the way that tunnel to Virginia Key to get sewage waste water, it would cost $600,000,000 according to expert estimates at the meeting.
I wonder what the scenario is, if there are not enough rate payers to pee enough to cool the reactors.
Scientists say children living near nuclear power plants have a higher risk of cancer
Child Health News
Monday, 10-Dec-2007
Scientists in Germany say young children living near nuclear power plants have a significantly higher risk of developing leukemia and other forms of cancer.
According to reports a study by researchers at the University of Mainz has found a connection between the distance between a child's home and the
nearest nuclear power plant and the risk of developing cancer, such as
leukemia, before their fifth birthday.
The study was conducted at the request of the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BFS) in regions near 21 reactors or former reactors.
In those areas, 77 cases of cancer were found among children under five and 37 children living within a 5-kilometer (3-mile) radius of nuclear power plants had developed leukemia between 1980 and 2003; a 60-percent increase over the national average of 17.
The risk was apparently 117 percent higher when only leukemia was considered.
The report suggests other radiation experts believe the study understates the issue and say there is an increased cancer risk for children living within 50 kilometers of a reactor.
The German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel is said to be looking closely at the study but Germany already has plans to prematurely shut down all of its nuclear power plants by the early 2020s
You can find it at the following URL:
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=33273
What happened to the pro-nuke people here?
This is another example of corporate greed. The sunshine state should take advantage of its solar advantage, not a heat producing, spent fuel problem, hugh water requiring plant. Unfortunately, solar power will not make the money for FPL that the nuclear plant would; the federal pot of gold to help build it, and rate payers to cover the profits. We can only hope that the enviromental groups through the courts can bring some sense to this nearsighted mistake.
One reader asked what happened to the pro-nuke people here.
I might be one of those people.
I haven't made up my mind. I am pesenting the other side much of the time because I think this is one of the most serious things we do: embrace nuclear power and live near a nuclear reactor. We should all be aware of the potential consequences. We should weigh the facts. Having people embrace nukes because FP&L offers jobs or is a good neighbor is lunacy. I would like to see some real investment in solar power and some effort put into conservation. I would like to Steve Siebert's recommendation put into effect: putting solar panels and cisterns on every new home. Help a developer pay for that -- that is a good investment in our children's future.
The Herald said no one spoke against nuclear energy. Because it was a ZONING HEARING MIAMI HERALD. It wasn't the time to speak for or against nuclear energy. It was the time to consider whether a zoning change should be granted.
The Herald said no one spoke against nuclear energy. Because it was a ZONING HEARING MIAMI HERALD. It wasn't the time to speak for or against nuclear energy.
Duh... They knew that. Not.
I thought it was a love fest... let's promote 'that nice FPL person' (make him strong mayor), give us underground power, and more tree trimming, and we will give you the wishes of your heart.
How Green Nuclear Power is, said the Mayor of Homestead. It is so clean and safe. What the hell was she talking about?
She was talking the party line. There is a very close relatonship between the city, FPL and the chamber. Homestead even had a FPL employee as coucilman a while back. I can't recall if that was the seat she won the first time in.
Commissioner Gimenez asked for WASD Director, John Renfrow, to ask the most important question of the day:
Gimenez (paraphrasing)
"Even with this approval, can FPL move forward with the project without a WASD approval to connect to the water system"
Renfro (paraphrasing)
"They would be required to obtain a consumptive use permit that requires them to identify the water availability either in our system or a system that they install, we would oppose FPL taping directly in the aquifer redirecting water available for the community."
If FPL cannot figure out how to address the water consumption issues, they cannot move forward. This was not final action, it just allows FPL to move forward in the process that has many hurdles ahead.
When there is a will there is a way. You didn't hear Renfrow, say "Not in my lifetime, baby!" while he was up there, did you?
Genius of Despair said...
any feedback on the Paul Fusco photos on the link i supplied? I am still numb.
Let's see.
If FPL cannot figure out how to address the water consumption issues, they cannot move forward.
I would bet my last dollar that FPL is not throwing around the kind of money they have been throwing on selling this plant, if they don't have an idea where they are going with the water issue. Somehow, I don't see them hiring a bunch of rain dancers. They have a plan.
And if John Renfrow has anything to say about it, the answer will be "yes." He is and always has been the ultimate "yes man." How else could he have lasted as long as he did as director of DERM and now of WASD?
Anybody remember that New Times article about Renfrow when he first took over DERM about how he never said no to any application to cut down a tree, regardless of its age or importance. He is the ultimate YES! MAN.
Speaking of trees... there was some lovely 'hat racking' going on my neighborhood last week. when are we going to make all the landscapers learn how to trim a tree or not work?
Nuclear Energy is NOT Renewable
From the language below, it seems likely that FPL is lobbying heavily to get the State of Florida and the Florida Public Service Commission to change the nationally accepted definition of renewable energy so that it includes nuclear energy. All of the references to "diverse" "reliable" and "adequate" are specifically in there to bolster the argument for nuclear. Neither international or national definitions of renewable energy include nuclear. The United States Dept. of Energy has not included nuclear power in the list of renewable energy sources. ( http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/brochure/renew05/renewable.html ) Renewable energy resources are virtually inexhaustible in duration but limited in the amount of energy that is available per unit of time. Renewable energy resources include biomass, hydropower, geothermal, solar, wind, ocean thermal, wave action, and tidal action. ) The only other state considering changing the definition of renewable to include nuclear is South Carolina (South Carolina General Assembly. 117th Session, 2007-2008. S.360. http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess117_2007-2008/bills/360.htm ).
I would ask all environmental groups and members to start a letter writing campaign to the members of the Florida Public Service Commission (which is stacked with pro-nuclear representatives, including an FPL rep), the governor, cheif financial officer, and attorney general (the FL cabinet), and the Florida Energy Office / Florida Department of Environmental Protection to inform them that they cannot change the definition of "renewable" energy just to suit themselves. Whether or not they decide to allow the new nuclear facility in Miami-Dade County is another issue. But the fact is that nuclear energy does not come from a natural flow of energy (i.e. on-going natural processes), nor is it naturally replenishing (EIA definition).
Contacts:
Florida Public Service Commission
http://www.floridaenergycommission.gov/commission_members.cfm
Governor Crist / Office of Governor Charlie Crist
State of Florida
The Capitol
400 S. Monroe St.
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001
Charlie.Crist@MyFlorida.com
Jeff.Kottkamp@MyFlorida.com
Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink
Florida Department of Financial Services
200 East Gaines Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
(850) 413-3100
cfo@fldfs.com
Attorney General Bill McCollum
Office of Attorney General
State of Florida
The Capitol PL-01
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
ag.mccollum@myfloridalegal.com
Florida Energy Office / Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Secretary Michael W. Sole
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard M.S. 49
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Office of the Secretary 850-245-2011
Jan. 3, 2008
FLORIDA ENERGY COMMISSION RECOMMENDS ENERGY POLICY TO
FLORIDA’S LEGISLATIVE LEADERS
http://www.floridaenergycommission.gov/UserContent/docs/File/2007_Report_Release.pdf
http://www.floridaenergycommission.gov/UserContent/docs/File/FEC_Report_-_Volume_I.pdf? bcsi_scan_4084C5AB3DBD951A=0&bcsi_scan_filename=FEC_Report_-_Volume_I.pdf
http://www.floridaenergycommission.gov/UserContent/docs/File/FEC_Draft_Language_Volume_II(1).pdf
Here are some excerpts from the report which recommends nuclear expansion and seems to recommend including nuclear within the definition of renewable energy.
Maximizing Florida’s Development of Renewable
Energy Resources
It is imperative to keep renewable energy policies measured against, and aligned with, Florida’s overall energy, environmental and economic policies and goals, when implementing renewable energy policies. Florida’s renewable energy potential differs greatly from that of other states. Therefore, we must create a renewable portfolio standard with special consideration of what is realistic in this state.
As Florida progresses in developing its energy policy, one Florida-specific version of the term “renewable” should be used consistently through out the Florida Statutes. In this report, the FEC defines renewable energy within the context of Florida’s unique population, economy and geographic environment.
To that end, in the area of renewable energy, the FEC is recommending further examination by the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC) and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to determine, assess and evaluate Florida’s current renewable energy status and the proper scenarios for a renewable portfolio standard. The Commission also is recommending that electric customers be allowed to generate renewable electricity on their property and sell a portion back to the grid.
This report presents a series of recommendations intended to fortify the state’s energy infrastructure, focused on the key areas of generation diversity, nuclear power, fuel supply, electric transmission, and land use. They convey the need to maintain a diverse portfolio of generation technologies with special attention to nuclear power. These recommendations also suggest increasing the reliability and adequacy of our fuel supply and electric transmission system, as well as landuse proposals to more efficiently accommodate future energy facilities.
Post a Comment