Climate Change

Nuclear power is counterproductive to efforts to address climate change effectively and in time. Funding diverted to new nuclear power plants deprives real climate change solutions like solar, wind and geothermal energy of essential resources.

.................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Friday
Dec132013

Beyond Nuclear joins with Ralph Nader to promote carbon-free, nuclear-free energy economy

Ralph NaderOn Dec. 12th, Beyond Nuclear's Kevin Kamps joined with Ralph Nader (photo, left) in an hour-long presentation to the Climate Reality Check Coalition on why nuclear power is a false solution to the climate crisis.

As described in the event announcement, Ralph Nader is one of America’s most effective social critics - named by The Atlantic as one of the 100 most influential figures in American history, and by Time and Life magazines as one of the hundred most influential Americans of the twentieth century, his documented criticism of government and industry has had widespread effect on public awareness and bureaucratic power. He is a long time watch dog of the nuclear industry and critic of nuclear power.

The conference call, with about 70 participants listening in and asking questions from across the country, was hosted and moderated by Allison Fisher, Outreach Director for Public Citizen's Energy Program.

The announcement of the conference call was sent out by Rose Braz of the Center for Biological Diversity, as well as Ted Glick of Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN was a coalition partner with Beyond Nuclear in the cancellation of the proposed new Calvert Cliffs 3 reactor in Maryland):

"We are pleased to have Ralph Nader and Kevin Kamps join our call to discuss why nuclear power is a false solution to the climate crisis.

The climate crisis is upon us. The world's leading climate scientists agree that time is rapidly running out and that urgent steps are needed to dramatically reduce our carbon emissions. In recent months, a small number of prominent climate activists have been urging the movement to accept nuclear power as a necessary part of the mix needed to get us off fossil fuels. Ralph Nader is a prominent spokesperson for the view that uranium fuel, as an alternative to fossil fuels, is a false choice and to address climate change and the consequences of dirty energy we must move toward a safe, efficient, sustainable and democratic energy economy, rather than promote dangerous solutions like nuclear power and fracking.

We’ll be joined by Ralph Nader and Kevin Kamps of Beyond Nuclear to discuss why nuclear is not the answer.  Our discussion will include:  
  
The exorbitant price and long completion time for bringing new reactors online; the opportunity cost of investing in nuclear power; the feasibility of a nuclear-free, carbon-free electricity sector; unique issues such as lethal waste, proliferation and safety.

The following background resources were mentioned during the course of the discussion:

Resources from NIRS and Beyond Nuclear on how to make public comments on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) "Nuclear Waste Con Game" Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement by the Dec. 20 deadline.

An opportunity for organizations to sign onto a letter by NIRS and Civil Society Institute, addressed to climate scientists James Hansen et al., urging them to reconsider their advocacy in favor of nuclear power as a climate crisis solution. Organizational sign on deadline is 5 PM Eastern, Friday, Dec. 20th. Send your name, title (optional), organization name, city and state to nirsnet@nirs.org.

IEER resources:



UCS reports:

2011 UCS report by Doug Koplow of Earth Track, "Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies."

UCS's most recent nuclear power safety reports, by David Lochbaum, Director, Nuclear Safety Project.

Rocky Mountain Institute (Amory Lovins):

"Reinventing Fire" -- Electricity.

Peter Bradford resources:

Peter Bradford, along with Mark Cooper, both of the Vermont Law School, speak on the atomic reactors most at risk of near-term shutdown in the U.S. (link to audio recording of press conference at the bottom of press release).

Beyond Nuclear board member Karl Grossman's article, posted at Enformable Nuclear News, about Peter Bradford's 10/8/13 presentation in New York City (along with Ralph Nader, former Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan (who served during the first months of the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe), former NRC Chairman Greg Jaczko, and nuclear engineer and whistleblower Arnie Gundersen of Fairewinds Associates, Inc.), attended by Beyond Nuclear's Reactor Oversight Project Director, Paul Gunter.

Beyond Nuclear resources:

(The three pamphlets above were written by Beyond Nuclear board member Kay Drey in St. Louis, MO.)

Additional Beyond Nuclear resources:

and

NIRS press release:

"All Levels of Radiation Confirmed to Cause Cancer," press release dated June 30, 2005 regarding the U.S. National Academy of Sciences Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR 7) report.
Thursday
Nov212013

Gambling with climate change, noted scientists blind bet on new nukes 

Climate and energy scientists James Hansen, formerly with NASA, Ken Caldeira from the Carnegie Institute, Kerry Emanuel from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s and Tom Wigley at the University of Adelaide in Australia recently released an open letter calling on environmental leaders to support a call for a massive global ramp up of nuclear reactor construction. In their view, there needs to be a last ditch effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions with a massive expansion of unproven reactor designs. The November 3, 2013 letter, entitled “To those influencing environmental policy but opposed to nuclear power,” antes up an impressive array of institutional credentials against the anti-nuclear community and a high stakes gamble for the future of the planet.  

Ironically, given the global decline of nuclear power largely due to failing the economic test, the letter’s argument against alternatively ramping up a 21st Century renewable energy policy starts with, “Renewables like wind and solar and biomass will certainly play roles in a future energy economy, but those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the scale the global economy requires.”

Dr. Hansen argues that on the current greenhouse gas emissions trajectory the planet’s fate arrives at a “tipping point” of no return in less than ten years. Beyond Nuclear does not dispute the scientists’ urgency for human civilization to address a man-made climate crisis. However, we adamantly disagree with staking the planet’s future on perpetuating the nuclear mistake.

So why are these scientists urging environmental leaders to make a blind bet on yet another unproven generation of nuclear power plants?  

This is not the first time that these same institutions have lent their prestigious names in what turns out to be a revolving door among academia, government and industry.

For example, take a closer look at the Carnegie Institute. The current and 9th President is Dr. Richard Meserve. Dr. Meserve, the academic, provided his promotional statement for nuclear power as the solution to climate change in an advertising supplement to the Washington Post, April 21, 2010 entitled “U.S. Cannot Dismiss Nuclear Energy in Quest to Control Global Warming.” The supplement also featured a front page advertisement by the industry’s top lobby group, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). It promoted nuclear power as “a zero greenhouse gas emitter while producing electricity," divisively omitting the significant carbon emissions from the uranium fuel chain. In 2012, the Nuclear Energy Institute presented Carnegie Institute President Meserve the nuclear industry’s William S. Lee Award for Leadership.

Dr. Meserve was also formerly the Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 1999 to 2003. He resigned his Presidentially posted five-year term early following  disclosures in an Office of Inspector General event report on the 2002 near-miss accident at Ohio’s Davis-Besse nuclear power generating station. The OIG report found that the NRC under Chairman Meserve required “an unreasonably high burden of absolute proof of a safety problem, versus lack of reasonable assurance of maintaining  public health and safety before it will act to shut down a power plant.”  We almost lost Toledo and portions of the Great Lakes, where the nuclear power plant was potentially weeks away and 3/16th of an inch from the rupture of a severely corroded reactor pressure vessel.

Carnegie President Meserve also serves as Senior of Counsel with the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP which provides legal services to the nuclear power industry. He  serves on the Board of Directors of Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) which owns and operates California’s Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Dr. Meserve also served on the Advisory Board of UniStar Nuclear Energy LLC which unsuccessfully sought to license and construct a new reactor in Lusby, MD, as well as the Board of Directors of Luminant Holding Company LLC which is the parent company of the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant in Texas.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology is long recognized as a champion of nuclear technology. Curiously, the climate scientists' missive fails to address the most fundamental obstacles to the expanded use of nuclear power as documented by Dr. Emanuel's own MIT 2002 report "The Future of Nuclear Power," which sought to answer already decades old questions to kick start the first "nuclear renassiance, a term now widely is disuse.

“The potential impact on the public from safety or waste management failure and the link to nuclear explosives technology are unique to nuclear energy among energy supply options. These characteristics and the fact that nuclear is more costly, make it impossible today to make a credible case for the immediate expanded use of nuclear power.” 

 

MIT’s findings are now only amplified by the real world events since the report was published eleven years ago when the global nuclear industry was at its peak and since slipped into a steady dangerous decline. The public safety and the environment are more impacted by in the uncontrolled nuclear catastrophe at Fukushima. The global industry remains without a geologically-secure repository operating anywhere in the world. Iran’s pursuit of “the peaceful atom” continues to threaten Middle East and global security with its inherent access to nuclear weapons. And finally, as evidenced most dramatically in the US, the increasingly exorbitant cost of atomic power has stymied the building of new reactors as corporate boardrooms abandon the construction license application process.

 

Rather than embark back down uranium's dirty, dangerous and expensive "yellow cake" road, we concur with Amory Lovins' plan for a stronger U.S. economy by 2050 with no coal, oil or nuclear power, one third less natural gas, a $5 trillion dollar net savings, and 82-85% lower carbon emissions. The most immediate these steps toward dramatically reducing carbon emissions from the energy sector can be quickly taken by ramping up energy efficiency technologies and conservation at residential, commercial and industrial levels.

 

 

Thursday
Sep262013

"Power Hungry: Will Angela Merkel Complete Germany's Energy Revolution?"

In this September 26, 2013 article by Paul Hockenos posted at the Foreign Affairs website,

the history of and prospects for Germany's energiewende -- energy transformation, from fossil fuels and nuclear power to efficiency and renewables -- is explored.

The fourth largest econonmy in the world will completely phase out nuclear power by 2022. It will get 80% of its energy from green sources by 2050, as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 95%. Germany is doing this through a dramatic expansion of renewable energy production and installation, which has generated hundreds of thousands of jobs. Germany's renewable energy industry is now half as big as its auto industry.

Thursday
May302013

Risk of "dirty shutdown" at Paducah gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment plant

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. Photo credit: USEC/U.S. Department of EnergyIn a two-part series, Geoffrey Sea of Neighbors for an Ohio Valley Alternative (NOVA) has exposed deep financial troubles which could lead to major radiological risks at the Paducah gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment plant in Kentucky. Mind boggling mismanagement, or worse, by U.S. Enrichment Corporation (USEC) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) are to blame.

Part I, entitled "Countdown to Nuclear Ruin at Paducah," was published May 22nd, and warned that there were just 9 days left to avert a "dirty shutdown" in the many miles of enrichment cells. If the uranium laden gas solidifies within the system, it will make eventual decommissioning and clean up astronomically expensive for taxpayers, and radiologically risky for workers.

Part II, "Slow Cooker at Paducah Comes to a Boil,"  was published May 28th, with only three days left to avert dirty shutdown.

Paducah has operated since the 1950s. Sea reports that Paducah, which employs the highly energy intensive gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment process, has the single biggest electric meter in the country, electrified by two dirty coal plants. It is also one of the single biggest emitters of ozone layer destroying CFC-114, which also happens to be a very potent greenhouse gas.

In September 1999, Joby Warrick of the Washington Post broke the story that post-reprocessing uranium from Hanford Nuclear Reservation, containing fission products and transuranics, had been secretively run through Paducah. Local residents, such as Ron Lamb, had already been long protesting Technetium-99 in his drinking well water, however. Paducah whistleblower Al Puckett helped expose a secret dumping ground for radioactive and hazardous wastes on site. Such revelations help to explain the high cancer rate amongst Paducah workers and area residents.

As Sea reports, USEC is still seeking a $2 billion federal loan guarantee from the Obama administration for its proposed American Centrifuge Plant at Portsmouth, Ohio. Newly confirmed Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz has deep ties to USEC, both during his time in the Clinton DOE, as well as afterwards, as a paid private consultant.

Wednesday
Mar272013

Environmental coalition defends contentions against Fermi 3 proposed new reactor, challenges adequacy of NRC FEIS

Environmental coalition attorney Terry LodgeTerry Lodge (photo, left), Toledo-based attorney representing an environmental coalition opposing the proposed new Fermi 3 atomic reactor targeted at the Lake Erie shore in Monroe County, MI, has filed a reply to challenges from Detroit Edison (DTE) and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff.

The coalition's reply re-asserted "no confidence" in DTE's ability to safely stored Class B and C "low-level" radioactive wastes on-site at Fermi 3 into the indefinite future, due to the lack of sure access to a disposal facility. it also again emphasized the lack of documented need for the 1,550 Megawatts of electricity Fermi 3 would generate. And the coalition alleged that NRC has failed to fulfill its federal responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as by the illegal "segmentation" of the needed transmission line corridor from the rest of the Fermi 3 reactor construction and operation proposal.

This legal filing follows by a week upon the submission of public comments about NRC's Fermi 3 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The comments, commissioned by Don't Waste Michigan and prepared by Jessie Pauline Collins, were endorsed by a broad coalition of individuals and environmental groups, including Beyond Nuclear. The FEIS comments included satellite images of harmful algal blooms in Lake Erie in 2012, and in 2011 to 2012, attributable in significant part to thermal electric power plants such as Detroit Edison's Monroe (coal burning) Power Plant, at 3,300 Megawatts-electric the second largest coal burner in the U.S. Fermi 3's thermal discharge into Lake Erie will worsen this already very serious ecological problem. Global warming is exacerbating such problems, as the coalition's comments made clear.

In the very near future, the environmental coalition intervening against the Fermi 3 combined Construction and Operating License Application (COLA) will submit additional filings on its contentions challenging the lack of adequate quality assurance (QA) on the project, as well as its defense of the threatened Eastern Fox Snake and its critical wetlands habitat. The State of Michigan has stated that Fermi 3's construction would represent the largest impact on Great Lakes coastal wetlands in the history of state wetlands preservation law.