David Noonan, writing for ABC Australia on March 3rd argues that nuclear power is too expensive and too dangerous for Australia, giving the United States as an example:

Nuclear energy is not only hazardous, but reliant on government subsidies to survive. Australia would spend its money more wisely on renewables. The employment benefits that flow from government investment in renewable energy are far, far greater.

Attacks on the safety of nuclear waste are all too common. Nuclear power releases dangerous amounts of radiation into the atmosphere. Nuclear reactors are vulnerable to a terrorist attack. Nuclear power results in nuclear weapons proliferation. … Continue Reading

Writing in the February 17th Los Angeles Times, Jim Tankersley and Michael Muskal report:

Seeking common ground with Republicans on energy and climate issues, President Obama on Tuesday pledged $8 billion in loan guarantees needed to build the first U.S. nuclear reactors in nearly three decades.

Industry groups and Republican leaders praised the announcement, which has been expected for months, but some environmentalists and free-market think tanks protested.

It is welcome that Tankersley and Muskal note that free-market think tanks have reservations about the loan guarantees, but when detailing those objections this is all LAT readers get:

Free-market groups complained that the

… Continue Reading

The Washington Times published a story September 1st by Amanda DeBard under the header: “Climate Change Bill To Boost Nuclear Plants” which starts out good:

Nearly half of the nation’s nuclear power plants stand to earn a windfall if the climate-change bill passed by the House becomes law.

But then DeBard goes on to report:

The bill will cause an “increase in revenues to carbon-free power sources like nuclear, and this is exactly what is supposed to happen,” said John Shelk, president of the Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA).
…
“The money isn’t really a ‘windfall profit,’ ” Mr. Shelk said. “Instead, it is

… Continue Reading