Boxer-Kerry Climate Bill Greenwashes Nuclear Power

Bowing to pressure from the pro-nuclear lobby, Senators Boxer and Kerry have included nuclear power into their bill to address climate change. In their proposed legislation, the Senators claim that "nuclear energy is the largest provider of clean, low-carbon, electricity...." Funny we've heard that before. In fact, the bill's nuclear section reads like it was lifted off the Nuclear Energy Institute's (NEI) website, despite its lack of veracity.

Over a decade ago, environmentalists challenged the nuclear industry's propaganda that they were clean and green. As a result, the Better Business Bureau's (BBB) National Advertising Division found that the Nuclear Energy Institute's ads falsely claimed that nuclear reactors make power without polluting the air and water or damaging the environment. The BBB said that, "The nuclear industry should stop calling itself 'environmentally clean' and should stop saying it makes power 'without polluting the environment.'" The director of the division said such claims were "unsupportable." The bureau agreed with environmentalists that nuclear fuel is made using electricity from coal plants and that nuclear waste poses a threat to the public health and safety.

The nuclear industry's brazen disregard for the BBB prompted the environmental groups to bring NEI before the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC found that

[B]ecause the discharge of hot water from cooling systems is known to harm the environment, and given the unresolved issues surrounding disposal of radioactive waste, we think that NEI has failed to substantiate its general environmental benefit claim.

Unfortunately those same false claims have now found their way into the legislation offered by Senator's Boxer and Kerry.

Even Andrew Kadak, "Professor of the Practice" at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), has acknowledged that nuclear power contributes CO2 to the environment. In a speech before the American Physical Society entitled "A Renaissance for Nuclear Energy?" Kadak bemoaned the fact that the international community had already rejected nuclear power as a solution to climate change. However, Kadak recognized that:

For many years, nuclear energy, while arguably a -CO2 emitting energy source, has been judged to be unacceptable for reasons of safety, unstable regulatory climate, a lack of a waste disposal solution and, more recently, economics.

If the Senators actually want to abate climate change rather than merely enriching nuclear corporations, we need solutions that are fast, safe and affordable, and that rules out nuclear power. The Congressional Budget Office has already determined that the risk of default on the nuclear loan guarantees congress will supply to the nuclear industry is well above 50%. Is it really the Senator's intent to support the next taxpayer bailout?

Mid American, a subsidiary of Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway, has already conducted their economic due diligence on a new nuclear plant and determined that
it does not make economic sense to build. If the "world's greatest investor" will not waste his resources on new nuclear power, perhaps the Senate should listen.

But Warren Buffet's corporation isn't the only one who thinks nuclear power is an economic non-starter. In April, Jon Wellinghoff, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, stated that new nuclear and coal plants are not needed. Renewable energy like wind & solar and improvements in energy efficiency will provide enough energy to meet our future energy demands. Wellinghoff concluded that nuclear and coal plants are too expensive.

In June, Moody's Investor Services released their analysis of new nuclear generation
and determined that nuclear power was a "bet the farm" risk. Why should the American taxpayer be expected to support such an investment?

The history of nuclear power plant cost overruns that led Forbes magazine to call nuclear power the "largest managerial disaster in business history" is repeating itself with the current generation of nuclear reactors. Last month, the French nuclear giant, Areva announced that they had lost 550 million euros, a 79% drop in their profits, due to construction delays with their reactor in Finland. According to Areva, the 3-billion euro nuclear plant has now accumulated 2.3 billion euros in estimated losses. Does the Senate really want to repeat this fiscal fiasco in the U.S.?

Nuclear power is a deadly and dangerous distraction from real solutions to climate change and our energy needs. Nuclear power is unsafe, uneconomical & unnecessary.
Rather than greenwashing nuclear power, Senators Boxer and Kerry should cut the nuclear title from their bill and work to oppose any attempts to support this failed experiment.

Written with Jim Riccio, Nuclear Policy Analyst for Greenpeace in Washington, DC.

More information on real solutions to climate change see Energy {R}evolution.
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/energyrevolution

Follow Daniel Kessler on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dkess

Comments

[JShep]

Coal is the worst pollutant in our power industry, but currently generates almost half of our electricity. Nuclear has disposal and safety problems, not to mention being very unpopular. Natural gas, though less polluting than coal, is still a major source of carbon emissions. It's very easy just to say replace it all with renewables. But, wind and solar are currently very expensive and its questionable as to the amount of total US energy needs they can meet (Existing ideally located wind farms are only 30% efficient at best). So, before any individual source of power is dissed, we need to take a comprehensive look at an overall power production and distribution plan sufficient to meet all the US's needs. The time required to replace undesirable power generation sources also needs to be addressed. With wind & solar accounting for less than 5% of our total power generation, it will take many decades to replace coal, not to mention the impact of the resulting increased cost of energy. Anyone who thinks it will be easy to replace existing coal and nuclear power plants does not have a good grasp of the facts. We need a detailed national plan that covers all the future energy needs and how to provide them.

[research]

Rooftop solar is the cheapest electricity you can buy: 3 cents per kwh. See my profile for details and links.

The % of solar now has NOTHING to do with the possibilities for the future.

A couple Billion dollars in thin film factories can produce 100's of 500WM power plants per year of solar panels PER YEAR! Faster than you can build ONE fossil or nuke plant.

Please adapt to the FACT: rooftop solar is the cheapest electricity. And can be mass produced and installed faster than any other energy source.

[guinganbresil]

The Truth?

[research]

The truth: Nuke power leads to proliferation, lead to global nuclear war sooner.

[guinganbresil]

Lies?

[guinganbresil]

Pu-240.

[SonofLiberty1]

50% of our energy production comes from coal and that's where we get the Carbon Dioxide from.

Each year, we spend at least $ 2 Billion lighting the undersides of Clouds, Birds and Airplanes.

Now, exaclty why are we burning coal to light the night sky?

[research]

Yet Obama claims to want to reduce proliferation.

More nuke industry more nuke proliferation. Same tech, mostly the same companies.

Rooftop solar is cheaper, clean, safe and forever,

nukes, not any of those things, plus increased threat of global nuclear war. Nuke power is insane.

See my profile for complete proof.

[Judynwtf]

Any power source that involves mining is not clean and green. By the time nuclear fuel gets to the reactor it has left behind tailings at the mine site that threaten nearby residents and its transport and enrichment have created more waste streams and pollution. Nuclear power equals waste products from beginning to end. Another thing nuclear power produces is lobbyists so getting the message to Congress is much harder for people who support energy sources with no profit producing fuel, like sun and wind.

[Overtone]

Our love affair with the automobile opens new ways to sharply reduce the need for nuclear power.

Revolutionary new technology will make possible electric cars that need no recharge - as well as hybrid engines that might need to be fueled with only one gallon of water for each thousand miles of driving.

Later, more advanced versions can become power plants when parked, wirelessly selling electricity to the local utility. Such cars can pay for themselves over time. They also can replace any need to build new coal burning or nuclear power plants.

The science is new, and will understandably be greeted with widespread disbelief and skepticism.

However, independent laboratory validation of one extraordinary breakthrough has taken place at Rowan University. It produced more heat than can be explained by existing textbook knowledge, clearly suggesting a new source of energy is involved. The experiments can and should be repeated, without delay, at National laboratories and other universities.

The Rowan experiments began the process of proving that new technology can allow one barrel of water to replace 200 barrels of oil!

For additional information, see the article: 5 Steps to Revive the Auto industry and the Economy on the website: http://www.aesopinstitute.org

Radically new technologies can let the love affair with vehicles change much of what is currently believed about energy. They are also highly cost-competitive!

The key question would seem to be: How best to accelerate the process?