The following is an Excerpt from Green Delaware Alert No. 579, December 26, 2007.

…”The Wilmington (Delaware) News Journal has published a set of stories about the possible building of new nuclear power plants near Delaware, under the general heading of "NUCLEAR REVIVAL"…

…”What are the facts about nuclear power and Delaware?

As [a recent NEWS JOURNAL] story notes, Delaware is surrounded by ageing nuclear reactors.  All are emitting radiation and producing radioactive waste which is piling up at the sites because there is no means of safe disposal or recycling.

Is there danger of another reactor being built at Salem ("Artificial Island")?  Maybe.  The site was originally planned for four reactors, but only three were built.  The foundations for a fourth (Hope Creek II) are said to already be in place.  But it is not likely that a new reactor would be built to the decades-old design of Hope Creek I.

Would new reactors be better-designed than the present ones?  They ought to be!  It's hard to think that the major reactor companies (in the US, GE and Westinghouse, now as before) haven't learned anything in the past 30 years.

Do better reactors solve the basic problems of the nuke industry?  No.  New reactors might be less likely to melt down or blow up.  But that doesn't solve other fundamental problems of radioactive emissions, nuclear waste disposal, cancer clusters, vulnerability to terrorism, and the horrible side effects of uranium mining.

Will people have a real say in whether more reactors get built?  Not if government and industry have their way.  For years, the nuke industry and government have connived together to "simplify" and "streamline" the siting and licensing processes.  This, of course, has one main purpose:  To deny the public any real role.

Is nuclear power cheap?  No.  The people claiming this are citing only "production cost," meaning the costs of running already-built plants, with subsidies, and exclusive of the multi-billion dollar costs of building the plants, and disregarding the real costs of nuclear waste.  This excessive capital cost makes nukes economically unviable without big government handouts.

So why are applications being received by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?  The Federal government is willing to pay companies to apply.

"For each nuclear plant seeking federal approval before the end of 2008, the act provides tax credits of up to $125 million for eight years, loan guarantees for up to 80 percent of a plant's cost, shared application costs and insurance that would cover the costs of regulatory delay."  (Washington Post, http://tinyurl.com/3cgn7w)

Here's some more on nuke subsidies: http://www.spokesmanreview.com/opinion/story.asp?ID=224131

The bottom line is that the nuke industry can't resume building on its own merits.  But the Bush administration wants badly to get more nukes built and is willing to stick the public with the costs and dangers.  (Do you really need to know any more than this?)

http://www.beyondnuclear.org/?Page=Module&ModuleID=38

www.psr.org  - Physicians for Social Responsibility

Nuclear Plant Risk Studies: Failing the Grade - Union of Concerned Scientists  

www.helencaldicott.com  - Dr. Helen Caldicott's official website

http://www.citizen.org/  Public Citizen

http://www.nirs.org   Nuclear Information and Referral Service

http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/  World Information Service on Energy

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news?related_item_id=89369

 Greenpeace.”…