A Dozen Years after Fukushima, Nuclear Power is Still a Death Wish - CounterPunch.org

A dozen years after four atomic reactors exploded at Fukushima, the plant STILL daily irradiates 150 tons of water which must be treated and stored forever.

Thousands of tons more of such lethal liquid are still held in rotting tanks. The Japanese government wants to dump them in the Pacific, but local resistance is fierce. The build-up will continue for countless years to come, with gargantuan quantities of deadly liquid ever-readier to destroy our oceans….and perhaps, eventually, human life, whose irrational addiction to atomic power has yet to abate.

As of March 10, 2011, the official industry line was that no US-designed commercial reactor could explode. Chornobyl blew up on April 26, 1986, sending deadly radioactive clouds throughout the Earth.

But the commercial reactor producers hid behind Chornobyl’s Soviet design, saying no such thing could happen to reactors designed by GE or Westinghouse.

The next day a massive offshore quake shook the six GE-designed reactors at Fukushima, severely damaging four of them. Some experts believe Unit One was on its way to melting before the giant tsunami wreaked havoc…followed by four massive explosions.

Cores at Units 1-2-3 melted, creating massive quantities of hydrogen, which ignited. A mushroom-shaped cloud suggested possible fission from the high-intensity fuel in Unit 3.

Hydrogen from Unit 3 seeped into the then-shut Unit 4 and exploded, leading to an extremely dangerous loss of coolant in the spent fuel pool.

In concert, the four blown nukes spewed at least 100 times more radioactive cesium than was released by the Bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan’s prime minister contemplated evacuating Tokyo’s 15 million people. Prevailing winds blew most of the radiation into the ocean—-towards California…

more: A Dozen Years after Fukushima, Nuclear Power is Still a Death Wish - CounterPunch.org

Biden is betting big on nuclear energy. But what happens if the next Hurricane Ian strikes Turkey Point?

The situation at Turkey Point highlights the potential risks with Biden’s energy strategy as the nation’s nuclear facilities age and extreme weather grows worse.

Biden is betting big on nuclear energy. But what happens if the next Hurricane Ian strikes Turkey Point?

Opinion | Nuclear Power Still Doesn’t Make Much Sense - The New York Times

The case for next-gen nuclear is getting harder to make as the price of solar, wind, and batteries plummets. In this well-reasoned op-ed by @fmanjoo, @mzjacobson describes this as an "opportunity cost" we cannot afford in the face of a climate crisis. https://t.co/QoHbp2nHa9

— Jay Turner (@_jay_turner) September 16, 2022

Opinion | Nuclear Power Still Doesn’t Make Much Sense - The New York Times

The Insanity of Expanding Nuclear Energy - Emagazine.com

Former nuclear regulatory top dogs from the United States, France, Germany and Great Britain issued a joint statement in January strenuously opposing any expansion of nuclear power as a strategy to combat climate change. Why? There is not a single good reason to build new nuclear plants. Here are ten solid reasons not to…

The Insanity of Expanding Nuclear Energy - Emagazine.com

ACT NOW: Tell the House to Oppose the Nuclear Bailout and Save the Climate!

ACT NOW: Tell the House to Oppose the Nuclear Bailout and Save the Climate!

BIG NEWS: West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin reached a deal with Congressional Democrats on a sweeping climate and energy package that supposedly would address the climate crisis, now called the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA). The Senate passed the bill on Sunday, August 7, and the House of Representatives plans to vote on it this Friday, August 12. 

This bill could have been our best – and maybe our only – chance to make real progress on fighting climate change and creating the just environmental and economic future the Biden administration promised voters. It should've been a major success for climate policy, thanks to tireless activists who worked to hold Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer accountable to get Sen. Manchin to the table on climate.

But, among the desperately needed good progressive measures in the IRA are bad policies and hundreds of billions of dollars in poison pills – handouts to fossil fuels, false climate solutions, and Big Nuclear. These provisions would profit dirty and polluting energy industries that are causing climate and ecological crises at the expense of taxpayers, environmental justice, and TRUE investment in the 100% renewable, just, and sustainable energy future we deserve. 

Frankly, the harm they would cause can’t be justified, and may actually block renewable energy and other real climate solutions in the bill.

Of the $369 billion dollars, up to $72 billion is slated for subsidies to aging nuclear reactors — a wasteful expenditure that will not create a single new job, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by any amount, nor make any progress towards climate action. The measure is nothing more than a corrupt bailout scam by the nuclear industry and their cronies in Congress. There is also: 

    $250 billion in taxpayer-guaranteed loans to prop up old nuclear and fossil fuel power plants 

    $40 billion in taxpayer loans that could go to building new reactors and fossil fuel power plants

    $700 million to promote domestic uranium mining and enrichment

We cannot settle for the inadequate, unjust, and wasteful policies in the Inflation Reduction Act. We cannot settle for a bill that backs false climate solutions and sacrifices frontline communities. We MUST demand better from Congress: a strong national policy for climate, the economy, and for environmental justice. The time to act is now. Demand that Congress and the Biden administration eliminate the massive subsidies to nuclear power and other dirty energy. 

Speak up today! Tell Your Representatives: Don’t Waste our Climate Future on False Solutions

Four Senior Nuclear Officials Say Nuclear Is Not A Climate Solution - Below 2C

Nuclear is not a strategy that will help with the climate crisis. Renewables are a better alternative to nuclear small modular reactors for two main reasons: cost and speed of deployment. While the costs of renewables are plummeting, nuclear costs have steadily been on the rise. And during a climate emergency and Canada’s dash to a 40-45% emissions reduction by 2030, renewables can be set up much faster and more reliably.

Four Senior Nuclear Officials Say Nuclear Is Not A Climate Solution - Below 2C

Opinion: The real cost of nuclear energy for humans and the planet | Opinion | DW | 21.01.2022

Nuclear power will soon be classified as environmentally friendly under the new EU taxonomy. But nothing about it is green or safe, says DW's Jeannette Cwienk.

Opinion: The real cost of nuclear energy for humans and the planet | Opinion | DW | 21.01.2022 

More Nuclear Energy Is Not The Solution To Our Climate Crisis

Faced with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest report, some environmental leaders are all too ready to toss a lifeline to aging, uneconomic nuclear power plants. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), long venerated as America’s most rigorous nuclear watchdog group, joined this chorus in early November.

The UCS report, “The Nuclear Dilemma,” proposes that we single out “safe” but financially ailing nuclear plants and subsidize their operations, so that they might remain open — thus avoiding additional carbon emissions from coal or natural gas plants that might replace them. America gets about 20 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, but only 17 of the 99 reactors that generate this power are unprofitable, according to UCS. Those reactors account for just 3 percent of overall U.S. power generation, though UCS says the share of unprofitable nuclear plants could grow in future years if the price of natural gas drops or the costs of maintaining older nuclear facilities rise.

What do we gain by breathing some extra life into these plants? Proponents say “zero-carbon emissions.” That’s if we choose to ignore the emissions associated with mining and processing uranium, building nuclear power stations, managing nuclear waste, and — on those rare but horrific occasions — dealing with the consequences of a major nuclear disaster.

Bailing out old, financially shaky nuclear plants is a short-sighted response to a huge challenge that requires much bigger, much more transformative thinking. Instead, we ought to invest big in our leading zero-carbon alternatives — solar and wind — which offer far cheaper electricity and, unlike nuclear, have life-cycle costs that have steadily dropped over the past several years…

more: More Nuclear Energy Is Not The Solution To Our Climate Crisis

NIRS Publishes White Paper on Reactor Shutdowns and Phaseout Plans | NIRS

NIRS published a white paper on strategies states can use to manage shutdowns of nuclear reactors responsibly and cost-effectively. Nuclear Reactor Closures: Practical, Cost-Effective Solutions for Communities and the Climate, takes lessons learned from reactor closures and state subsidy programs. It proposes proactive, cost-effective ways for states to plan for shutdowns, while protecting workers and local communities through economic transition and accelerating renewable energy growth and greenhouse gas reductions.

NIRS Publishes White Paper on Reactor Shutdowns and Phaseout Plans | NIRS

nirs.org

Should We Subsidize Nuclear Power to Fight Climate Change? - Scientific American Blog Network

That’s what some are advocating, but the arguments in favor of doing so are flawed

Last month, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) put out a reportentitled The Nuclear Power Dilemma: Declining Profits, Plant Closures, and the Threat of Rising Carbon Emissions that calls for offering subsidies to unprofitable nuclear power plants. Not surprisingly, it has been widely welcomed by nuclear advocates, who interpret the report as essentially saying “yes to nuclear power” in order to reduce carbon emissions.

But that interpretation misses the many important but less prominent insights in the UCS report… read more

Conclusion: "All these factors undermine the report’s central assumption that nuclear plants will be replaced by fossil fueled plants. To be fair, the UCS report does call for periodically assessing whether continued support is necessary and cost effective. But such support might already not be cost effective. All told, the economic basis for subsidies is uncertain at best; more likely, it is flawed. Either way, it may be best to get onward with the transition from fossil fuels and nuclear power to renewables."

Should We Subsidize Nuclear Power to Fight Climate Change? - Scientific American Blog Network

NUCLEAR POWER AND CLIMATE ACTION

When nuclear power started to develop into an ever more important source of electric energy during the second half of the twentieth century, there grew widespread optimism regarding the potential of this seemingly unlimited, clean and, in the long run, economic resource. The unresolved problem of how to dispose of nuclear waste—which degrades very slowly, with a half-life of up to 15.7 million years—existed from the beginning but was widely ignored. Instead, much hope was placed in finding a solution to this problem—a solution that, up to this date, still does not exist.

Those who were skeptical of nuclear power were proven right by the accidents of Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986, and Fukushima in 2011. The latter two incidents in particular encouraged demands for a nuclear power phase-out and led to the establishment of phase-out plans in several countries, including Germany. When the urgency of climate change, along with the necessity of rapid decarbonization, became more evident, many scientists and activists alike pleaded for the use of nuclear power as a transitional technology. They argued that the use of nuclear power could help to avoid shortages in energy supplies caused by the relative unreliability of renewables like wind and solar energy.

In this important new study, Tim Judson, Executive Director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) and renowned nuclear power expert, does away with persistent myths about the importance of nuclear power. Starting not from an abstract position but by considering real-world events, the author demonstrates the very concrete challenges that the production of nuclear power poses for the environment as well as for our economy.

In addition to the long-lasting environmental impacts of nuclear power production, Judson pays attention to how it affects communities—and in particular poor communities of color—through the mining and processing of uranium as well as the disposal of nuclear waste. While mainly focusing on the production and use of nuclear power in the US, as well as possible phase-out scenarios, this study can easily be applied to other contexts around the world. Informed by global trends in climate change, this study is of utmost urgency in showing us a path toward a nuclear-free, sustainable future.

Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung—New York Office introduces this study as an opportunity to carefully investigate the possible potential as well as the dangers of nuclear power, and the question of its suitability as a transitional technology.

FULL REPORT (English/PDF)

NUCLEAR POWER AND CLIMATE ACTION | ROSA LUXEMBURG STIFTUNG NYC

Annual dose of empirical data shows nuclear power in continued decline – Report tracks global success of renewable energy | Beyond Nuclear International

Annual dose of empirical data shows nuclear power in continued decline

By Linda Pentz Gunter

When arguing the case for or against nuclear energy, you can go with the masters of spin and omission or you can go with the empirical data. We prefer the latter. And for that, there is the welcome annual edition of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report.

After that, the job becomes easy. There IS no case for nuclear power. It’s fundamentally over. Yet governments — mainly those of nuclear weapons states — cling on to it even as their fingers are loosened one at a time from the ledge. They refuse to fall. Why?

These questions are largely answered in the 2018 edition of the WNISR which rolled out in London, UK on September 4, and is available for download — in full or as an executive summary — from the WNISR website… … …

more: Report tracks global success of renewable energy | Beyond Nuclear International

What Are Coastal Nuclear Power Plants Doing to Address Climate Threats? | Truthout

…According to maps prepared by the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO), around one in four of the world’s 460 working commercial nuclear reactors are situated on coastlines. Many were built only 10–20 meters (30–70 feet) above sea level at a time when climate change was barely considered a threat. 

In the US, where nine nuclear plants are within 2 miles (3 kilometers) of the ocean and four reactors have been identified by Stanford academicsas vulnerable to storm surges and sea-level rise, flooding is common, says David Lochbaum, a former nuclear engineer and director of the nuclear safety project at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). 

Lochbaum says over 20 flooding incidents have been recorded at US nuclear plants since the early 1980s. “The most likely [cause of flooding] is the increasing frequency of extreme events,” he says.

“There was no consideration of climate change when most US plants were built,” says Natalie Kopytko, a University of Leeds researcher who has studied nuclear power plant adaptations to climate change. “They used conservative models of historical reference. Also, they were largely built at a calm period, when there were not many major storms.”

“While an accident has never yet happened due solely to sea-level rise and storms, the flooding experienced at Fukushima resembles what could occur in the future from sea-level rise,” says Kopytko.

Considering Climate Change

IAEA’s current global safety standards were published in 2011. These state that operators should only “take into account” the 18- to 59-centimeter (7- to 23-inch) sea-level rise projected by 2100 in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s fourth assessment report, published in 2007. 

But those safety standards don’t factor in the most recent assessment of the IPCC, published in 2013–14. This scientific consensus report has seas rising 26 centimeters (10 inches) to 1 meter (39 inches) by 2100, depending on how far temperature continue to rise and the speed at which the polar ice caps melt. 

A 1-meter (39-inch) increase, combined with high tides and a storm surge, significantly increases the risk of coasts and nuclear stations being swamped, says Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University. 

“Nuclear stations are on the front line of climate change impacts both figuratively and quite literally,” Mann says. “We are likely profoundly underestimating climate change risk and damages in coastal areas…”

read: What Are Coastal Nuclear Power Plants Doing to Address Climate Threats? 

ARCHIVED Webinar: Health Risks of Nuclear Power • March 29, 2018 | PSR

Webinar: Health Risks of Nuclear Power

March 29, 2018

As PSR chapters promote the transition to clean renewable energy, some are finding that nuclear power is being proposed as renewable. Join us on this webinar to learn exactly why nuclear is not clean, not safe and not renewable

ARCHIVED on YouTube ––––

#Fukushima: A million tonnes of radioactive water still in storage after nuclear disaster – Fukushima 311 Watchdogs

To dump into the ocean a million tonnes of radioactive water should be considered by the international community a crime against humanity and an ecocide against the environment. Whatever they say, whatever they lied, it will never be totally decontaminated and it will never be safe, no matter how many shills on the mainstream media are paid by the nuclear lobby to spin fairy tales in order to brainwash the public about ‘safety’.

… Japan cannot agree on what to do with a million tonnes of radioactive water being stored at the destroyed Fukushima nuclear power plant — and there is a chance it could spill if another major earthquake or tsunami were to strike.

The water is being stored in about 900 large and densely packed tanks at the plant, which was overwhelmed by a devastating tsunami more than six years ago.Making matters worse, the amount of contaminated water held at Fukushima is still growing by 150 tons a day.

The stalemate is rooted in a fundamental conflict between science and human nature.Experts advising the government have urged a gradual release of the water to the nearby Pacific Ocean. Treatment has removed all the radioactive elements except tritium, which they say is safe in small amounts.

Conversely, if the tanks break, their contents could slosh out in an uncontrolled way.Local fishermen are balking — they say the water, no matter how clean, has a dirty image for consumers …

more: Fukushima: A million tonnes of radioactive water still in storage after nuclear disaster – Fukushima 311 Watchdogs 

#DontNuketheClimate #COP23 | Rally on 11.11, Bonn, Germany

The solutions to the climate crisis are clear: A rapid, just transition to a nuclear-free, carbon-free energy system. The only sure way to stop the global warming impacts of energy use is to transition as quickly as possible from antiquated energy models of the 20th Century and their polluting nuclear power and fossil fuel technologies … to the safe, clean, affordable and sustainable renewable, efficient, and smart technologies of the 21st Century.

The International Anti-Nuclear campaign "don't nuke the climate" – On 03.11.2017 October 03.11.2017, at a press conference in bonn, its agenda for the approaching Conference " Cop23".

Nuclear power in particular cannot solve the climate crisis. Indeed, its continued use exacerbates global warming by preventing the deployment of clean energy systems.

Among a myriad of other problems, nuclear power is:

Rooted in human rights violations and environmental racism: First Nations, people of color and low-income communities are targeted for uranium mining and radioactive waste. Radiation harms women and girls at twice the rate as their male counterparts. And radioactive pollution indiscriminately harms future generations, poisoning the environment for hundreds to thousands of years.

Too Dirty: Nuclear reactors and the nuclear fuel chain produce vast amounts of lethal radioactive waste, which grow whenever nuclear power is used. The nuclear fuel chain is responsible for far more carbon emissions than renewable energy generation and improved energy efficiency. All reactors routinely emit radiation and radioactive waste. Scientific bodies agree have confirmed that there is no “safe” level of radiation exposure.

Too Dangerous: Continued use of nuclear power will inevitably lead to more Fukushimas, Church Rocks, and Chernobyls. The technology and materials needed to generate nuclear energy can be diverted to nuclear weapons programs.
Too Expensive: Nuclear power is the costliest means possible of reducing carbon and methane emissions; its use crowds out investment in clean energy sources.

Too Slow: Use of nuclear power to reduce fossil fuel emissions would require an unprecedented nuclear construction program, beyond the capability of the world’s manufacturers within an acceptable time frame.

Clean energy, including solar, wind, geothermal, energy efficiency, distributed generation, electricity storage and other advanced technologies can meet the world’s energy needs without carbon and methane emissions, radioactive waste, and other pollutants.

FUNDRAISER

dont-nuke-the-climate-2017.causevox.com

PETITION 

dont-nuke-the-climate.org/sign/

Don't nuke the climate
dont-nuke-the-climate.org
facebook.com/Dont-nuke-the-climate-43412295027…/

Nuclear Information and Resource Service
nirs.org/
facebook.com/NIRSnet/

• original post  on Facebook with images and a share button: facebook.com/robert.cherwink/posts/10209890984610620

on facebook: Robert Cherwink - #nonukes :: #DontNuketheClimate #COP23 | Rally...

Tell FERC One More Time: Stop the $100+ Billion Nuclear-Coal Bailout! | NIRS | #DirtyEnergy #NuclearFreeCarbonFree #DontNuketheClimate

Make Your Voice Heard!

Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary, Rick Perry, has proposed an unprecedented bailout for nuclear and coal power plants that will raise people’s energy bills and undermine renewable energy.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is fast-tracking the DOE’s radical proposal and plan to adopt it in 60 days. Public comments were due October 23rd, exactly three weeks after the plan was announced, and we delivered over 11, 420 comments to FERC. 

The proposal calls for subsidies for old, outdated, and very polluting nuclear and coal plants under the guise that they promote electric grid reliability. 

Here are the basics:

     • The DOE wants FERC to bailout power plants that have 90 days of fuel onsite (-- a meaningless idea fabricated to justify subsidies for nuclear and coal).

     • FERC would guarantee the profitability of those coal and nuclear plants by charging consumers prices for their electricity that cover each plant’s operating costs, plus a "return on investment."

     • The bailout would cover 43 reactors in thirteen states—nearly half of the nuclear industry—and over 60 coal plants.

     • The purported basis for the proposal is to ensure the reliability of the electrical grid, but the DOE’s own report published in August found that wind and solar energy strengthened the affordability, reliability, and resilience of the grid.  

This bailout will raise electricity costs by billions of dollars a year and ratepayers across the country will ultimately foot the bill for supporting these expensive plants. And worst of all – it will block renewable energy and increase greenhouse gas emissions.

FERC is taking a final round of public comments until November 7. And we need to deliver another 11,000 comments to them! Even if you already signed a petition or sent a comment, please do so again for this final round.  

It is still important to voice our opposition and the time to act is NOW! And after that, pass it on to your friends and to your contacts on facebook, twitter, Instagram, etc.

Stay tuned for more actions to take as we build this campaign to save our 100% Clean Energy Future!

SIGN NOW!

Background Information:

NUCLEAR SUBSIDIES

• NIRS Report: Too Big to Bail Out: The Economic Costs of a National Nuclear Power Subsidy
  NIRS analysis shows that the nationwide cost of a proposed nuclear subsidy program could cost over $280 billion by 2030.
• GreenWorld:  The Astronomical Cost of New Subsidies for Old Reactors: $280 Billion
  A national nuclear bailout would be climate backwards: blocking renewable energy and diverting massive amounts of money to prop up aging, uneconomical reactors.
  
• New York Just Proved Why Bailing Out Nuclear Power Is a Bad Idea
  New York's recently approved 12-year, $7.6 billion nuclear subsidy program will cost 3 times as much as the state's plan to achieve 50% renewable energy by 2030.

• Union of Concerned Scientists: Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies
  Government subsidies to the nuclear power industry over the past fifty years have been so large that in some cases it would have cost taxpayers less to simply buy kilowatts on the open market and give them away.
• NIRS: Killing the Competition: The Nuclear Power Agenda to Block Climate Action, Stop Renewable Energy, and Subsidize Old Reactors

100% RENEWABLE ENERGY

• Environment America: We Have the Power: 100% Renewable Energy for a Clean, Thriving America
• Institute for Energy and Environmental Research: Carbon Free and Nuclear Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy
• Greenpeace: Energy (R)Evolution: A Sustainable Energy USA Outlook
  Study shows U.S. can get to 98% renewables by 2050
• 100% Renewable Energy for All: A sustainable world energy outlook 2015
  Report finds that the world can be powered by 100% renewables by 2050. 
• SUN DAY Campaign: Watts Bar 2: Winning the Battle while Losing the War
  New Electrical Generation from wind and solar is 21 times greater than that expected from the US's first nuclear reactor in 20 years.
• Pew Research Center: Public opinion on renewables and other energy sources

MULTIMEDIA

• Don't Nuke the Climate: lessons from Japan and Germany. Featuring Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute.
• Paris and Onward: the Path Forward to a Nuclear-Free, Carbon-Free energy future
  With Dr. Mark Jacobson of Stanford University and The Solutions Project; and Dr. Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF NUCLEAR POWER

• #NuclearIsDirty Presentation Series
• Fact Sheet: Nuclear Power and Climate: Why Nukes Can't Save the Planet
• Briefing Paper: Nuclear Energy is Dirty Energy

ENERGY TRANSITION

• Oil Change International: The Sky’s Limit: Why the Paris Climate Goals Require a Managed Decline of Fossil Fuel Production
• Labor Network for Sustainability: Climate, Jobs, and Justice Project: A plan for a just transition to a climate-safe economy
• Alliance for a Green Economy (AGREE) and NIRS: Replacing FitzPatrick: How the Closure of a Nuclear Reactor Can Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Radioactive Waste, While Creating Jobs and Supporting the Local Community

SIGN NOW!

Please Join Us in Supporting the Don't Nuke the Climate Campaign! | NIRS | COP23 ::: #DontNukeTheClimate

NIRS is a founding member of the Don't Nuke the Climate coalition -- a global campaign to stop nuclear power and promote urgent, ambitious action on climate change. We are based in the US and serves the grassroots anti-nuclear and sustainable energy movements. 

It is more important than ever for the voices of people from the US and North America are heard at the COP23 global climate conference next month in Germany. President Trump opposes climate action and is working to undermine the Paris Agreement. His administration is strongly promoting nuclear power and fossil fuels -- most dramatically with moves to create a $100+ billion bailout for nuclear and coal power plants! 

This is a bad example for the rest of the world, and we must make sure that other countries know Americans oppose nuclear power and want a nuclear-free, carbon-free world.

Nuclear power is not a solution to climate change - it is too dirty, too dangerous, too expensive, and too slow to solve the climate crisis -- and it has a long track record of violating basic human rights. From mining uranium to making nuclear waste, to disasters like Fukushima and Chornobyl, it poisons the environment and endangers our health and security. Climate action funds must focus on sustainable, 100% renewable energy solutions -- and not false, dirty energy sources like nuclear, dirty biomass, and large-scale hydro power.

The Don't Nuke the Climate! campaign is a grassroots international campaign to bring that message to the COP23 global climate conference at Bonn, Germany in November 2017.  

We have to stop nuclear power from raiding climate action funds to build nuclear reactors, mine uranium, and make radioactive waste.

Thanks for whatever support you can give!

#DontNukeTheClimate

>> Please Join Us in Supporting the Don't Nuke the Climate Campaign! | NIRS

#DONTNUKETHECLIMATE :: COP23 / Nov. 2017 / BONN (GERMANY)

Jasmine Bright photo

The solutions to the climate crisis are clear: A rapid, just transition to a nuclear-free, carbon-free energy system. The only sure way to stop the global warming impacts of energy use is to transition as quickly as possible from antiquated energy models of the 20th Century and their polluting nuclear power and fossil fuel technologies … to the safe, clean, affordable and sustainable renewable, efficient, and smart technologies of the 21st Century.

Nuclear power in particular cannot solve the climate crisis. Indeed, its continued use exacerbates global warming by preventing the deployment of clean energy systems.

Among a myriad of other problems, nuclear power is:

Rooted in human rights violations and environmental racism: First Nations, people of color and low-income communities are targeted for uranium mining and radioactive waste. Radiation harms women and girls at twice the rate as their male counterparts. And radioactive pollution indiscriminately harms future generations, poisoning the environment for hundreds to thousands of years.

Too Dirty: Nuclear reactors and the nuclear fuel chain produce vast amounts of lethal radioactive waste, which grow whenever nuclear power is used. The nuclear fuel chain is responsible for far more carbon emissions than renewable energy generation and improved energy efficiency. All reactors routinely emit radiation and radioactive waste. Scientific bodies agree have confirmed that there is no “safe” level of radiation exposure.

Too Dangerous: Continued use of nuclear power will inevitably lead to more Fukushimas, Church Rocks, and Chernobyls. The technology and materials needed to generate nuclear energy can be diverted to nuclear weapons programs.

Too Expensive: Nuclear power is the costliest means possible of reducing carbon and methane emissions; its use crowds out investment in clean energy sources.

Too Slow: Use of nuclear power to reduce fossil fuel emissions would require an unprecedented nuclear construction program, beyond the capability of the world’s manufacturers within an acceptable time frame.

Clean energy, including solar, wind, geothermal, energy efficiency, distributed generation, electricity storage and other advanced technologies can meet the world’s energy needs without carbon and methane emissions, radioactive waste, and other pollutants.

Sign our petition

COP23 / Nov. 2017 / BONN (GERMANY)

Please Join Us in Supporting the Don't Nuke the Climate Campaign! | Nuclear Information and Resource Service

Beware nuclear industry’s fake news on being emissions free | Letters | Environment | The Guardian

David Blackburn says we need decentralised energy sources; David Lowry on nuclear not being zero-carbon technology; plus letters from David Hayes and Fred Starr

…Your incisive editorial makes many strong points, not least highlighting the exigencies of potential security compromises and terrorism vulnerabilities of the planned new nuclear reactor at Hinkley Point. But there is a fatal flaw in the argument you set out. The editorial asserts: “Nuclear power has a trump card: it is a zero-carbon technology which delivers a continuous, uninterrupted supply.”

This is demonstrably untrue. On the latter point, you only have to consult the published operating record of reactors to see this is an unsustainable claim. All reactors have lengthy planned outages (shutdowns) for operational reasons; some have significant unplanned outages due to operational failures; and in the extreme case of post-accident safety prudence, such as in Japan, their 54 reactors were all closed for years after the 2011 Fukushima disaster – and became hugely expensive “stranded assets.”

On alleged zero-carbon status of nuclear plants, you repeat a similarly erroneous assertion made in your editorial of 1 October 2005 (Pre-empting debate), where you wrote: “The big advantage of nuclear generation is that it does not produce environmentally degrading emissions in the way that fossil fuel generation does.”

You printed my response to this assertion (There is nothing green about Blair’s nuclear dream, 20 October 2005) in which I set out the various ways the carbon footprint of nuclear power is substantial, if the whole “cradle-to-grave” nuclear fuel chain (uranium mining, milling, enrichment, fuel production, in-reactor fuel irradiation, storage and final long-term management) is properly calculated. I pointed out that the nuclear industry’s proponents, such as those gathered at last week’s World Nuclear Association jamboree in London, are fond of spreading fake news such as describing nuclear energy as “non-carbon emitting”. It is about time this dangerous falsehood was confined to the dustbin of history…

read: Beware nuclear industry’s fake news on being emissions free | Letters | Environment | The Guardian