Nuclear Power is Not Necessary

Nuclear Power Is Unnecessary

Nuclear Power is Unnecessary – The world now has the technology to make all the electric power it needs, without nuclear.

This comes with Peter Sumaruck’s Energy Production Technology, now worldwide.

Content from the original article of May 10, 2009 now has updates from 2012, where we compare nuclear power issues in the U.S. with those occurring in the European Baltic countries.

Nuclear disarmament begins with decommissioning.

In 2009, Ignalina’s three nuclear power plants in Lithuania (1978 pre-Chernobyl era plants) were permanently decommissioned (#3Unit shut by the end of 2009).

After 2009, 90% of Lithuania’s power would be imported from Russia. It was agreed that a new nuclear plant next to the old ones would be built, to be named Visaginas after a small town nearby (close to the Belarus border). Environmental questions remain regarding future heat discharge into Lake Drukshyai.

Bumper-car ride for Chernobyl workers’ children left as it was in the ghost town

After an explosion and fire at the Chernobyl nuclear complex, in what then was the Soviet republic of Ukraine, on the night of April 25, 1986, a northerly wind contaminated almost one-third of the territory that now is Belarus.

When the horrors of nuclear poison occur in any particular country, the citizens of that country are more likely to want to campaign against nuclear power, but it is more difficult for Belarusians to demonstrate against any issue because of their close political relationship to Russia.

Just last year, Lithuania decided to try again, now with a new reactor Visaginas, to be constructed next to the old ones at Ignalina. In July of 2011, Lithuania selected GE Hitachi to engineer and build the new reactor. Hitachi “expects to build a single 1350 Mwe Advanced Boiling Water reactor (same as the Fukushima plant), several of which are operating in Japan and Taiwan.” Note, this deal took place after the Fukushima disaster.

“Last Reactor of 50 in Japan is Shut Down”, May 6, 2012, The New York Times. “Japan’s last operating reactor was taken offline Saturday (May 5),” on the northern island of Hokkaido …“forcing the nation to do without atomic power for the first time in 42 years.”

“Today is a historical day,” Masashi Ishikawa shouted to the crowd gathered at a Toyyo park, some holding traditional “Kohinoor” carp=shaped banners for Children’s Day that have become a symbol of the anti-nuclear movement.”… “Not a single one (nuclear plant) will be up and running today, and that’s because of our efforts,” said Ishikawa. He said this was the country’s first nuclear free day since May 1970.

In Japan, the outrage of masses of everyday people have forced down nuclear power.

In the Baltics, Poland withdrew from participation in the Visaginas project last December. In mid-2012, the Lithuanian parliament is expected to approve the Hitachi agreement whereby Latvia and Estonia would contribute 1billion EUR each.

While at this time, Lithuania is contesting the location of a new nuclear plant Russia has already started to build, closer to the Baltic coast in their enclave of Kaliningrad – only 50km from Lithuanian capital, Vilnius. The same problem exists now with a new reactor, Belarus wants to build which is in the other direction, but only 55km from Vilnius. The Visaginas site is further from Vilnias at 130 km, but closer to the Latvian border. One might ask, are all those reactors necessary.

After Fukushima, the U.S. government advised its citizens living in Japan to stay at least 50 miles away from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant (connect to Union for Concerned Scientists ).

Refer to for details on what the NRC is and should be doing to insure the safety and health of U.S. citizens.

Nuclear power is expensive – transmission lines between Lithuania and Poland for the LitPol Link cost 300 million EUR, then another 500 million EUR by 2015, and again by 2020. The NorBalt underwater project between Lithuania and Sweden will cost 500 million (actually sounds like a bargain).

What is even more expensive is decommissioning – “estimated cost for Ignalina is over 2.5 billion EUR, but taking down Ignalina was necessary – an old site in dangerous condition.

Neighboring Baltic country, Latvia before 2009, was receiving much of their electric power from the Ignalina plant in Lithuania. Now in 2012, energy is front page importance connected to Latvia’s participation in the Lithuania-Swedish power interconnection project, NorBalt.

Latvian Prime Minister Valdis Dombrovskis avoided public speculation that Latvia might pull out of the project, “What is most important for us is (that the project has) commercial viability and whether this project is feasible in the Nordic markets.”

The NorBalt project will provide “high voltage direct-current submarine and underground cables” and is scheduled for launch in Dec. 2015.

Because the general public doesn’t know about Zero-Amp Technology, the Baltic countries believe they are in a bind; they must: import gas and electricity from Russia or receive direct current under water from Sweden, along with nuclear power-produced energy from Visaginas (built by Japan‘s Hitachi), when the new plant comes online.

Baltic citizens seem more concerned with the economics of energy than with environmental or health concerns…I suppose you could also say that about many Americans.

Baltic countries don’t realize they have the natural resources to generate power in their own countries… but they do. Every country can and will have many power production plants that don’t use fuel and never produce pollution.

Peter Sumaruck’s Zero-Amp Technology considers electric energy in an entirely different way. Sumaruck shows how power should be delivered on a smaller scale, thereby making long distance transmission unnecessary. And the size of his facilities would be diminished. His system would only take up one thousandth of the space of the Visaginas site.

Unlimited power is created wherever the need is. If Riga in Latvia needs more power, then a scaled-up plant can be constructed close to where the power is needed. Plant construction for electric power is less expensive than nuclear plant construction; no fuel is required, and no underwater link under the Baltic Sea .

This electric power production system is always simple, unlimited, uncomplicated, more efficient and considerably less expensive.

Compare energy issues of nuclear power in Europe to those in the United States. Europeans seem to have similar problems, concerns and risks, in whether to develop nuclear power.

“Barack Obama is the first president to make nuclear disarmament a centerpiece of American defense policy.” says The New York Times, May 10, 2009. While everyone talks about how complicated and difficult disarmament will be, the way to begin is by not needing nuclear energy for domestic electric energy. It would be hypocritical to disarm weapons but increase the number of nuclear power plants, especially when nuclear energy is unnecessary.

Nuclear disarmament begins with decommissioning.

In April, 2009 at the Jersey Shore, Oyster Creek nuclear generating station is the old man of American nuclear power production. Built in 1969, it is the oldest nuclear power plant in America – older than the 3 Ignalina reactors that were decommissioned in 2009. Nuclear power may have served us then when choices were few – 1969 sounds more like a year for wine than it does for a well-designed nuclear plant.

Oyster Creek, less than a mile from a community

Oyster Creek is older than Chernobyl (1974), and was constructed using an outmoded design, now replete with defects. There is a tendency toward corrosion where a drywell shell could buckle and leak water. Spent fuel rods must be kept under water; exposure to air could lead to a nuclear reaction.

In 2009, I spoke to Julia LeMense, of Eastern Environmental Law Center, “There’s always the waste issue.”

One would think Exelon, the parent company would want to do anything possible to expedite the repair process, since Oyster Creek, according to Ms. LeMense, is a “merchant” plant and a moneymaker for the company, serving primarily corporate industrial needs. When the plant is down, every day lost is big money for them.

According to Reuters, “In a report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the company (Exelon) said (on Saturday, April 25, 2009) power to the transformer cooling system oil pumps and fans was lost…and the reactor had to be shut down.

Consider, when she says, “every lost day is big money,” the reality of big business is emphasized – nuclear power is not just a simple way to power your home. It is big business and every day of down time is a business expense which must be repaid by the customer – the onus is put on the consumer.

That is part of doing business, but in most cases, if a consumer wants to live or operate a business in the location of the power plant, then they must use the utility in their area – there isn’t a choice.

With Zero-Amp Technology, if there is a corporate site to be powered, that can happen without the usual local electricity provider. ZAT produces power on a large or small scale – the customer owner or director makes the decision to be on or off the grid, or a combination of both.

Nuclear power plant problems can be very complicated.

At Oyster Creek, that particular transformer was installed just a few months earlier, in February of 2009, after a previous shutdown, according to Joshua Riley of the Asbury Park Press, article on April 27. There is an implication this replacement transformer may not have been new when installed. Plant spokesman David Benson told reporters they have 2 new transformers currently on order, showing they anticipated a problem.

Asbury’s environment editor, Todd Bates mentioned a leakage at a monitoring station near a well. Exactly one week later, the plant was still down. Is this week’s delay harmful – if you are ocean wildlife, yes.

Oyster Creek is an island surrounded by a discharge canal. According to Clean Ocean Action, an environmental group, when the plant’s cooling towers are not operating, 1.3 billion gallons of cold water is flushed daily into the Barnegat Bay. Over the years, ocean life has acclimated to the warm and chlorinated water from the nuclear plant. Now, this infusion of cold water would further upset the balance and place a stain to survive upon ocean animal life.

Another problem with Oyster Creek – one week after the NRC renewed Oyster Creek’s operating license for another 20 years (April 15, 2009), the plant discovered the radioactive atom tritium level was five times higher than the UPA limit for drinking levels. Tritium was found in “a 20ft. deep sampling pipe near a storage tank” – again according to Asbury Park Press. Some days later, the Tritium level increased by 200 times.

Ms. LeMense said, “Leakage (separate from the transformer issue) is clearly a problem; pipes may have corroded (the corrosion design flaw) and cracked. Tritium could enter the bay. I asked her what about shutting down the plant entirely like the company did at their Zion, Illinois plant.

She told me, “Decommissioning funds were established some time ago, but they have not kept up (with inflation); the amount is not sufficient. It’s a taxpayer issue now.”

Remember how expensive decommissioning was in Lithuania. But knowing that decommissioning was provided for with Oyster Creek shows it was/is always considered a possibility. Producing power using nuclear is not a simple activity – it comes with baggage.

As a reminder, Nuclear disarmament begins with decommissioning.

On Friday, May 1, 2009, The New York Times reported that a 12 in. pipe at the Indian Point #2 nuclear plant in Buchanan, N.Y. had broken and water was coursing across a floor at the site. The story was subsequently reported by MSNBC that night. The odd thing was that the Times stated the water flow had happened on Feb. 16 – that’s two and a half months ago, by now, not really breaking news.

Map after Hurricane Irene shows power plants – green dots are nuclear – shows how close they are to population centers.

Apparently what brought the story forward was Rep. Edward J. Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat who heads a House subcommittee on energy and the environment, “…the leak raised serious questions about the regulatory commission’s oversight.” If Rep. Markey had not said anything, that leak would probably never have become public information.

Was this incident just getting their feet wet or was it critical to plant operation and safety. A spokesperson said the “pipe supplies a 600,000 gallon tank used whenever the plant trips or shuts down.” We’re learning how essential water is in this powerful process – a simple thing like water.

The Times article also refers to tritium as an issue, associated with water leaks as problems for reactor plants at Braidwood, (just that week), also Byron and Dresden, Illinois, and Palo Verde, Arizona… but no mention by the Times of Oyster Creek – probably the most egregious problem location.

One observation we can make is that transparency of information is more open in the U.S. than it is in the Baltic countries, but new energy technology isn’t happening any faster because of knowledge.

Nuclear protest group

In March, 2012, to mark the one year since Fukushima, “A group of blistered activists opposed to nuclear reactors passed through Bergen County in their month long march connecting nuclear power plants from Ocean County to southern Vermont state.” One of the participants was Megumi Tanifuji, of Iwate, Japan (120 miles north of Fukushima), speaking to a reporter as she gave out leaflets, “I want to send a message: No more nuclear disasters.”

“Advocates Skeptical that Oyster Creek Will Comply with NRC Orders” March 22, 2012 – anti-nuclear advocates are concerned Oyster Creek reactor will not comply. “They agreed to an early shutdown (which would involve decommissioning),” said Gregory Auiemma, a local attorney and president of the Ocean County chapter of the Sierra Club. See article for details:

Auiemma cites concerns that events at Fukushima have emphasized the need to mitigate possible operational issues at Oyster Creek.

Janet Tauro, co-chair of Grandmothers, Mothers and More for Energy Safety (GRAMMES) spoke of a conversation with the area manager for the NRC at Oyster Creek who told her upgrades would be “very expensive.”

“It won’t be cost effective for them to implement these changes two years before closure,” said Gregory Auiemma…which implies that dangers may exist but will not be repaired. “Oyster Creek may avoid implementation through litigation.”

How can “fixing” be less expensive than attorney’s fees?

Oyster Creek, nuclear is scheduled to shut down permanently on Dec. 2019. In January, 2012, concerned citizens said they want to make sure Oyster Creek stands by its promise to decommission despite a federal court ruling.

A protest demonstration on this issue is organized for March 24, 2012 – “The main premise of our demonstration tomorrow is in reference to the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant,” said Benjamin Davies, staff director of the New Jersey Environmental Federation.

He refers to a decision by a U.S. district judge in Brattleboro, VT, who ruled that Vermont Yankee nuclear plant “could remain open beyond it’s scheduled shutdown date this year. The state had originally ruled against Vermont Yankee’s federal operating license, which gives the plant 20 more years to operate.”

Davies said, This “sparks concerns that the same could happen at Oyster Creek.” Local advocates want Oyster Creek to come down as scheduled.

All these efforts, both pro and against nuclear serve to emphasize the real need for an alternative to nuclear power. That alternative is present and available, and it is far superior in every way to nuclear power – available on-site whenever, wherever it’s necessary. The electric energy is clean, with no harmful effects, and it is inexpensive. This power source is Zero-Amp Technology.


For comments and questions, contact Information Officer, Charlotte Wilson at