Missouri Senator Robin Wright-Jones I strongly urge you to stop the Support of Ameren UEs Nuclear Agenda. The past does repeat itself and Missouri can do better than Nuclear Energy for Clean Energy Production.
Here are my top 10 reasons-with examples on why I I do not support Ameren UE’s Nuclear Agenda.
1) Amerens goal is to charge the people of the St Louis Area, the ratepayers, millions of dollars up front for an unnecessary, risky, and expensive Nuclear Power Reactor Plant rather than investing in the cheapest energy resource available, energy efficiency
2) the proposed legislation would chip away at a 1976 ballot initiative supported 2-to-1 by Missouri voters. (A law that the Voting Citizens of Missouri Enacted)
- legislation-SB 321 and SB 406– This law protects Missourians from investor-owned utilities charging ratepayers up-front for the construction of a power plant until it is producing electricity.
- To understand the many other reasons why SB 321 and SB 406 are bad public policy, read Senator Joan Bray’s guest column in the Joplin Globe last month.
3)Ameren admits it cannot find investors to fund the Nuclear Plant because it is too risky and expensive.
- Scotts Contracting/Facebook Page Latest Estimated Costs for Nuclear Reactor is $10 Billion. The citizens will be on the hook for an additional $4 Billion Dollars
- Therefore, Ameren must pass SB 321 or SB 406 which shifts the financial risk of investment of a new nuclear plant from shareholders to ratepayers.
- But while shareholders dodge the risk, they still receive a financial windfall if/when the reactor comes online and Ameren then sells the excess electricity out of state for a premium.
- In the St. Louis Post Dispatch on February 25, Steve Kidwell, Ameren Missouri Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, said:
- “If we went after the potential that we’ve seen in our own study, we wouldn’t have to build another power plant for 20 years, and we could retire Meramec, and we’d be OK. But we’d lose $30 million a year. And we just can’t do that. It’s that simple.”
- The costs for solar photovoltaic (PV) systems have fallen steadily while construction costs for new nuclear power plants have been rising over the past decade, which now makes electricity generated from new solar installations cheaper than electricity from proposed new nuclear power plants, according to a new report published by a retired Duke University professor.
- Missouri has Adequate Clean Energy Resources from via: Photovoltaic Electricity and GEO Thermal. Both of which has no harmful side effects- Such as Nuclear Waste.
6)According to Norman Baker, the environment spokesperson… turning to nuclear power to tackle climate change is “like jumping from the frying pan to the fire”. “Nuclear power may not contribute to carbon emissions, but it generates tonnes of radioactive wastes costing billions to store and will pose a risk to humans for thousands of years after disposal,” he added.
9) If there is a Nuclear Disaster our Great Missouri Land will be destroyed. Just Like the disaster Japan is currently going thru and what the Soviets went thru with Chernobyl. I for one don’t want to see the Great Missouri Farmland Polluted from Nuclear Waste.
10) There is no safe way to dispose of the Nuclear Waste. The Citizens of Nevada have already put a stop to the proposed nuclear waste burial in their back yard– Yucca Mountain.
All the Information Provided on this Article is from the Green Blog: St Louis Renewable Energy I give the sources for all the information provided. Please research the True Costs of Nuclear. It is clearly not what Missouri Needs- when there are more feasible alternatives- that not only cost less but have no harmful effects to the Environment.
I urge Everyone who opposes this Nuclear Movement to contact your legislation Department at: Missouri Legislature Contact Link
Listen to Her Interview about the Ameren UE Nuclear Agenda-
“The Way I Roll“