NUCLEAR The flow of information supporting the contention that nuclear power is stupid in all sorts of ways is continuing to broaden and deepen. The best recent items are: Energy Alternatives Cheaper than Coal & Nuclear Power, by Dr. W. R. Z. Willey, March 1978, 75dfor 15 pp. summary, $10 for full report from: Environmental Defense Fund 2728 Durant Ave. Berkeley, CA 94704 Analysis shows that Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PG&E) could use proven alternative energy sources (conservation, ogeneration, on-site solar heating, wind, geothermal) to replace 9 of 10 new coal and nuclear power plants it now plans to build, and the shift would provide nearly $500,000 more in revenues. This would result in the same amount of energy, at the same reliability, with better economic results for the utility, its stockholders, its customers and for the taxpayers as well. The study was submitted to the Calif. Public Utilities Commission in hearings on PG&E's latest request for a rate increase. Most useful to citizens working against rate increases and anti-nuclear intervenors. Nuclear Plant Performance Update 2: Data through Dec. 1977, by Charles Komanoff, June 1978, inquire as to price from: Komanoff Energy Associates 475 Park Ave. South New York, NY 10016 This is the author's 3rd annual analysis of nuclear power plant operating reliability, and concludes that, since boiling water reactors (BWRs) of 1150 megawatt size have average capacity factors of 50 percent and 1150 mw pressurized water reactors (PWRs) average 59 percent, new, large nuclear plants are less economical than new medium-sized coal-fired plants anywhere in use, except the northeastern U.S., where PWRs may be competitive with coal. Extremely useful to anti-nuclear groups for both legal intervention and public education. - LJ An Analysis of Federal blcentives Used to Stimulate Energy Production, PNL2410, UC-59, March 1978, free from: Division of Conservation & Solar Applications U.S. Dept. of Energy Washington, DC 20545 For the first time, we now have documentation that the abortive nuclear culde-sac has cost us $15 to $17 billion over the last 30 years in known government aid via R&D, the cost of civilian reactor safe ty regulation, and the investment in enrichment plants. The total costs of incentives to the nuclear industry do not include the cost of the PriceAnderson Act and federal uranium policies as "no way was found to quantify them." Useful in persuading anyone that nuclear power has not been "too cheap to meter." - LJ Nuclear Power Costs, the House Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee, Leo J. Ryan, Chairman. (Submitted to the 95th Congress by the Committee on Government Operations, April 26, 1978), free Already out of print and hard to locate; write to House Gov't. Operations Ctte, 2157 Rayburn Bldg., Washington, DC 20515, and strongly urge that they make more available. Someone in the Congress has taken the bold step to lay the numbers out on the table; nuclear power is all economic fiasco if we consider the long-term costs of safely disposing of radioactive wastes and decommissioning 35-year-old wasted plants, or the short-term rise in capital construction costs, soaring uranium prices, tendency of nukes to perform less than reliably, and the fact that the utilities have been overbuilding their generating capacity far in excess of demand. This report recommends a California-style moratorium on nuclear construction, immediate attention to the thorny waste disposal problem and an end to such hidden subsidies to the nuclear industry as the Price-Anderson Act, while noting that solar and conservation are the logical, economic alternative to nukes. Here it is, in one concise report, looking terribly official. A must for any energy activist. - SA RECYCLING Compost Science;Journal of Waste Recycling, $IS/year, bimonthly, from: Box 351 Emmaus, PA 18049 More and more towns and cities arc being pushed against the wall by their sewage problems and are being forced to look beyond the over-expensive and simplistie mechanical systems of recent years. Compost Science is probably the best single resource for alternativesfor on-site treatment systems, compost toilets, municipal composting and alternative collection and land utilization processes. - TB August/September 1978 RAIN Page 17 Deposit Legislation Resource Guide, 1978, $1.00 from: National Clearinghouse on Deposit Legislation Environmental Action Foundation 724 Dupont Circle Building Washington, DC 20036 This is the most complete bibliography around for citizens' coalitions working to pass " bottle bills" in their states, putting a minimum deposit on beverage bottles and cans. It covers deposit legislation already enacted in several states, reports from states gearing up to do the same, sources of information on all the issues from saving energy to creating jobs, as well as on campaigns, coalitionbuilding and media skills. All sources are annotated and many are available at little or no cost from EAF. Delaware just became the seventh state to pass legislation, and a national bill is dependent on more state victories. This guide will help us get there. (Thanks to Diane MacEachern) - SA .. ." .; (..? .. t.I ... '" o .. '" Ill: c o ·c.. -.; 's;, ~
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz