C-SPAN | Fukushima Task Force Recommendations

watch: C-SPAN | Fukushima Task Force Recommendations: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) commissioners testified on efforts to implement the Fukushima Near-Term Task Force recommendations. The task force, formed in reaction to the nuclear power plant failure after Japan’s 2011 9.0 magnitude earthquake and subsequent tsunami, released a series of recommendations on nuclear energy safeguards. They include requiring licensees to upgrade plants to protect against earthquakes or other natural disasters. Facilities must also have detailed emergency plans for long-term black outs at nuclear power plants.

Fukushima: Landmark Lawsuit filed against General Electric, Toshiba and Hitachi

A landmark lawsuit has been filed against three companies that manufactured the reactors at Japan’s crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant to hold General Electric, Toshiba and Hitachi accountable for the catastrophic meltdowns following the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami. The situation at Fukushima continues deteriorating and posing the risk of catastrophic leaks in the event of an earthquake. Bio-accumulation of radioactive isotopes poses an increasing risk for higher organisms, including humans.

The lawyers for the 1.415 plaintiffs stated that they have filed a lawsuit at the Tokyo District Court, describing the case as a landmark challenge to nuclear power plant manufacturers immunity from liability in nuclear accidents. Manufacturers and operators of nuclear power plants have been granted immunities which are unprecedented in any other industry, because no insurance company, worldwide, would agree to insure the power plants when the industry first developed.

A 2013 study found that cesium levels in forests had almost doubled within one year.

Under Japanese law, only the Fkushima Daiichi operator, the Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) can bee held accountable for the accident. The lawyers report that the 1415 plaintiffs include 38 residents of Fukushima and 357 persons from outside Japan.

The plaintiffs allege that General Electric, Toshiba and Hitachi failed to implement safety improvements to the four decades old boiling water reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant, and are seeking a compensation of 100 yen (1 USD) each. The plaintiffs stress that their first priority is not the economic compensation, but to raise awareness about the problem with the power plant manufacturers immunity and the dangers of nuclear energy.

Associated Press is quoting one of the plaintiff’s lawyers, Akihiro Shima, as saying that “the manufacturers have not been held accountable and that their names are not even mentioned”. The lawsuit is, according to Akihiro Shima, intended to bring attention to the system that protects the nuclear industry around the world.

Units 1, 3 and 4 at Fukushima Daiichi were built by General Electric, Toshiba and Hitachi while unit 2 was built by General Electric and Hitachi. All of the units were completed and began operations during the 1970s.  Toshiba and Hitachi have declined to comment on the lawsuit, saying that they have not yet received the legal documents.

The crippled power plant continues to leak radioactive contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean and to contaminate the environment. Meanwhile, the danger of an imminent, catastrophic event, far from having been mitigated, increases by the day as TEPCO continues storing highly contaminated water in storage tanks which are likely to leak massive amounts of contaminated water in the case of a midi-sized or severe earthquake. Fukushima is located in one of the world’s most active geological areas.

A 2013 study has shown that the levels of the radioactive isotope cesium in forests in a diameter of 60 – 120 km around the power plant has almost doubled within one year, indicating a strong bio-accumulation of the pollution. The leaking water is putting considerable stress on maritime ecosystems and also here, the full bearing of the disaster may not transpire until bio-accumulation of the radioactive isotopes would eventually stress the organisms at the top of the food chain, including marine mammals and humans.

In January 2014, Japan’s Fisheries Research Agency announced that one of the samples of black sea bream specimens, caught about 37 kilometers South of the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has tested 12,400 bequerels per kilogram, making it 124 times more lethal than the threshold that is considered safe for human consumption.

Adding to the protection of the nuclear industry and to popular concerns about nuclear safety is the fact that the Japanese government has passed legislation that provides for severe punishment for those who leak “unauthorized” information about the situation in Fukushima and about its effects.

Fukushima: Landmark Lawsuit filed against General Electric, Toshiba and Hitachi | nsnbc international

Uranium payments privacy, Saskatchewan

Uranium payments privacy Global News January 28, 2014 - YouTube

Uranium payments privacy Global News January 28, 2014
SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA
http://youtu.be/ooMGd35zOTM
via Coalition for a Clean Green Saskatchewan
http://www.youtube.com/user/cleangreensask

Published on Feb 1, 2014
From Global News: "In 2012, the small northern village of Pinehouse, Saskatchewan signed a deal with two uranium companies worth $200-million. A local magazine doing an investigative report on the agreement asked to see more public documents about the village's role in that deal....but the mayor refused." Link to the Global News story aired on January 28, 2014: http://globalnews.ca/video/1113939/uranium-payments-privacy

Legal action seeks transparency from Northern Village of Pinehouse regarding uranium contracts - Posted by Andrew Loewen on Monday, January 27th, 2014

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 27, 2014

"Plaintiffs D'Arcy Hande, Valerie Zink, and Andrew Loewen filed a statement of claim in the Court of Queen's Bench today seeking compliance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act on the part of Mayor Mike Natomagan of the Northern Village of Pinehouse. Mayor Natomagan has refused to release documentation requested under the Act despite the urgings of the Information and Privacy Commissioner in a public report released last November."

Read full press release:http://briarpatchmagazine.com/announcements/view/legal-action-pinehouse

Courting collaboration: How the uranium industry bought the Village of Pinehouse, and what residents are doing to take it back BY D'ARCY HANDE • NOV 1, 2013
http://briarpatchmagazine.com/articles/view/courting-collaboration

Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner Gary Dickson released a Review Report on November 18, 2013 recommending that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General "consider prosecution pursuant to section 56(3) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in respect to the refusal of the Northern Village of Pinehouse to comply with a lawful requirement of the Commissioner."

Read the report:http://www.oipc.sk.ca/Reports/Review%20Report%20LA-2013-004.pdf

"Privacy Commissioner says Pinehouse remiss," Star Phoenix, November 25, 2013
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Privacy+commissioner+says+Pinehouse+remiss/9211561/story.html

"Uranium's chilling effects," The Media Coop, November 21, 2013
http://www.mediacoop.ca/story/uraniums-chilling-effects/19083

2.10-19 Uranium Film Festival - DC & New York City

The International Uranium Film Festival goes in February to Washington DC (Goethe-Institute) and New York City (The Pavilion Theater Brooklyn). All together the festival will screen more than 60 films about nuclear power, uranium mining, atomic bombs, radioactivity, about Chernobyl and Fukushima. Several filmmakers are present at the screenings in Washington DC (February 10 -12) and in NYC (February 14 – 19).

Goethe-Institute Washington DC

http://www.goethe.de/ins/us/was/ver/en12063338v.htm

The Pavilion Theater Brooklyn

http://www.paviliontheater.com/?p=content&id=Uranium+Film+Festival+2014+Feb+14+to+Feb+19+

Norbert G. Suchanek
General Director

International Uranium Film Festival
Website: www.uraniumfilmfestival.org
Email: Info@uraniumfilmfestival.org

Office Address

Uranium Film Festival
Rua Monte Alegre 356 - 301
Santa Teresa
Rio de Janeiro / RJ

Washington DC & New York City

The Big Picture Theatre | Fairewinds Energy Education

Maggie and Arnie speak at The Green Mountain Global Forum about the risks of living near one of the twenty-three US nuclear reactors that are identical to the four that exploded at Fukushima Daiichi (Mark 1 Boiling Water Reactors). The “Lake Wobegone” effect (where each community thinks their nuclear plant is better than average) convinces the 23 local communities in which there is a Mark 1 BWR that a nuclear accident couldn’t possibly happen at their nuclear reactor. The experiences at Fukushima Daiichi, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, prove that faith in nuclear safety is unfounded.

The Big Picture Theatre | Fairewinds Energy Education

The Fukushima Secrecy Syndrome – From Japan to America by Ralph Nader

The Fukushima Secrecy Syndrome – From Japan to America
By Ralph Nader

Last month, the ruling Japanese coalition parties quickly rammed through Parliament a state secrets law. We Americans better take notice.

Under its provisions the government alone decides what are state secrets and any civil servants who divulge any “secrets” can be jailed for up to 10 years. Journalists caught in the web of this vaguely defined law can be jailed for up to 5 years.

Government officials have been upset at the constant disclosures of their laxity by regulatory officials before and after the Fukushima nuclear power disaster in 2011, operated by Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO).

Week after week, reports appear in the press revealing the seriousness of the contaminated water flow, the inaccessible radioactive material deep inside these reactors and the need to stop these leaking sites from further poisoning the land, food and ocean. Officials now estimate that it could take up to 40 years to clean up and decommission the reactors.

Other factors are also feeding this sure sign of a democratic setback. Militarism is raising its democracy-menacing head, prompted by friction with China over the South China Sea. Dismayingly, U.S. militarists are pushing for a larger Japanese military budget. China is the latest national security justification for our “pivot to East Asia” provoked in part by our military-industrial complex.

Draconian secrecy in government and fast-tracking bills through legislative bodies are bad omens for freedom of the Japanese press and freedom to dissent by the Japanese people. Freedom of information and robust debate (the latter cut off sharply by Japan’s parliament in December 5, 2013) are the currencies of democracy.

There is good reason why the New York Times continues to cover the deteriorating conditions in the desolate, evacuated Fukushima area. Our country has licensed many reactors here with the same designs and many of the same inadequate safety and inspection standards. Some reactors here are near earthquake faults with surrounding populations which cannot be safely evacuated in case of serious damage to the electric plant. The two Indian Point reactors that are 30 miles north of New York City are a case in point.

The less we are able to know about the past and present conditions of Fukushima, the less we will learn about atomic reactors in our own country.

Fortunately many of Japan’s most famous scientists, including Nobel laureates, Toshihide Maskawa and Hideki Shirakawa, have led the opposition against this new state secrecy legislation with 3,000 academics signing a public letter of protest. These scientists and academics declared the government’s secrecy law a threat to “the pacifist principles and fundamental human rights established by the constitution and should be rejected immediately.”

Following this statement, the Japan Scientists’ Association, Japan’s mass media companies, citizens associations, lawyers’ organizations and some regional legislatures opposed the legislation. Polls show the public also opposes this attack on democracy. The present ruling parties remain adamant. They cite as reasons for state secrecy “national security and fighting terrorism.” Sound familiar?

History is always present in the minds of many Japanese people. They know what happened in Japan when the unchallenged slide toward militarization of Japanese society led to the intimidating tyranny that drove the invasion of China, Korea and Southeast Asia before and after Pearl Harbor. By 1945, Japan was in ruins, ending with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The American people have to be alert to our government’s needless military and political provocations of China, which is worried about encirclement by surrounding U.S.-allied nations and U.S. air and sea power. Washington might better turn immediate attention to U.S. trade policies that have facilitated U.S. companies shipping American jobs and whole industries to China.

The Obama administration must become more alert to authoritarian trends in Japan that its policies have been either encouraging or knowingly ignoring – often behind the curtains of our own chronic secrecy.

The lessons of history beckon.

Ralph Nader - The Fukushima Secrecy Syndrome – From Japan to America (facebook)

GROUPS LAUNCH TWO NATIONAL CAMPAIGNS | Coalition Against Nukes

For Immediate Release: January 23, 2014

GROUPS LAUNCH  TWO NATIONAL CAMPAIGNS

HIGH BURNUP NUCLEAR FUEL: Pushing the Safety Envelope
and
MAKE RADIATION VISIBLE

Organizations from across the country are kicking off two campaigns in Washington DC this week, calling on congress and regulatory agencies to address growing nuclear power hazards: the dangers of hotter-than-ever radioactive waste being generated in US nuclear reactors, and the routine, invisible-yet-harmful radioactivity released from every nuclear power reactor.

The first, HIGH BURNUP NUCLEAR FUEL: Pushing the Safety Envelope, led by Dr. Marvin Resnikoff of Radioactive Waste Management Associates [VT], a renowned radioactive waste specialist and nuclear physicist, will bring awareness to the extra-hazardous high level radioactive waste referred to as High Burnup Fuel (HBF) – nuclear fuel that is used for longer than originally designed for and which has led to fuel failures and leaks in nuclear plants across the country and even greater storage and transport challenges. Resnikoff cautions that the policy of burning fuels longer to improve profits was accepted by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) without adequate scientific evaluation or public knowledge. The consequences include zirconium fuel cladding corrosion in storage pools and dry storage casks. He cautions the continuance of this policy may be endangering public safety. ‘Burning’ longer in the reactors means the nuclear fuel becomes even more adioactive, as much as doubling its heat and radioactivity. The group declares nuclear fuel casings were not designed for this added stress. The resulting corrosion and cracks are allowing leaks and putting citizens at reactors and along transportation routes at risk. Dr. Resnikoff says, “My concern is the NRC is running an experiment in the field, increasing the transportation and disposal risk.”

The second campaign calls for steps to MAKE RADIATION VISIBLE. A group of concerned citizens in the Tennessee Valley, Mothers Against Tennessee River Radiation (MATRR), is proposing a plan to reveal these invisible toxins. First, they call on the NRC to upgrade monitoring rules, replacing outdated quarterly averaging currently reported only once a year with real-time online data about radiation levels around nuclear power plants. Second, just like odor markers for natural gas and propane, they call for florescent dyes to be dispersed with emergency radiation plumes, providing immediate warning about where the radioactive releases are traveling – which could be a critical life-saver for the public and first-responders. Third, they call for public health alerts when these known carcinogens and mutagens are released into the environment. Says the MATRR group’s co-founder, Gretel Johnston, “We have weather alerts, smog alerts, and even pollen alerts – why not radioactivity alerts when these poisons are both routinely and accidentally released into our air and water? We are alerted to other hazardous substance spills, why not radiation alerts?”

The committee was organized by long-time nuclear activists Gene Stone, founder of Residents Organized For a Safe Environment (ROSE), and Priscilla Star, founder of Coalition Against Nukes. Among the groups meeting with NRC Commissioners, EPA radiation specialists, and other government officials this week are the Coalition to Decommission San Onofre, Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, the Bellefonte Efficiency and Sustainability Team / Mothers Against Tennessee River Radiation (BEST/MATRR), and Nuclear Information and Resource Service.

See enclosed Factsheets:
HBFfactsheet01-09-2014.pdf and MakeRadiationVisible.pdf

Links for more information:

• ResidentsOrganizedForASafeEnvironment.wordpress.com
• CoalitionAgainstNukes.org
• IPSECinfo.org
• Clearwater.org
• www.nirs.org
• SanOnofreSafety.org
• www.MATRR.org
• www.rwma.com

GROUPS LAUNCH TWO NATIONAL CAMPAIGNS | Coalition Against Nukes

The ongoing debate on nuclear power and climate change | GreenWorld

On January 8, 2014, 311 mostly grassroots organizations from around the world sent a letter to four climate scientists, including the well-known Dr. James Hansen, in response to their November 3, 2013 open letter to the environmental movement calling for our support for new nuclear power as a tool to help address the climate crisis these scientists have so ardently brought to public attention. Our GreenWorld post about the January 8 letter can be found here, and it includes links to the letter itself and the November 3 scientists’ letter.

The January 8 letter was spearheaded by NIRS and the Civil Society Institute and essentially argued that nuclear power is not only too dangerous and presents too many problems ranging from radioactive waste disposal to the environmental devastation caused by uranium mining and processing, but that it is uniquely ineffective at addressing climate both for economic reasons and because the “safer” reactors the scientists’ advocate don’t exist and, even at a best-case scenario for the concept, won’t exist in any meaningful time frame–e.g. the time frame these same scientists effectively argue is necessary to drastically reduce (or, as we’d prefer) essentially eliminate carbon emissions from the electricity sector.

Our letter also included an invitation to debate these issues with us in a public forum.

That’s the quick background. Read the previous post for the details. Well, we’re still waiting (not exactly with bated breath) for a formal response–a response that is actually to us (and we did include our contact information) from the scientists.

But one of the scientists, Dr. Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science, did respond to an e-mail requesting comment from Grist. While we appreciate the indirect feedback, it seems to us that Dr. Caldeira missed the key points of our position even while casting some tacitly snide aspersions on our motivations and expertise.

For example, as reported by Grist, Dr. Caldeira begins his e-mail this way, “It is time for people to rethink their positions on nuclear power, and make arguments based on facts rather than prejudices.”

Actually, as someone who collaborated on the letter and with nearly 30 years experience on nuclear power issues, I kind of resent the implication that our arguments were not based on facts. Indeed, it is precisely the facts that lead us to the conclusion that nuclear power not only will not and can not be useful in making any substantial reductions in carbon emissions, but therefore spending limited resources on trying to make nuclear power succeed would divert those resources from much more effective technologies. That would make nuclear power actually counterproductive as a climate strategy.

Dr. Caldeira also takes issue with our describing the scientists’ position as one of “embracing” nuclear power. We’re glad to hear he does not “embrace” nuclear power, and indeed he does offer compelling critique of current nuclear reactors. Perhaps we could have chosen a better word than “embrace,” but really, that’s a red herring. Whether wholeheartedly embracing or accepting nuclear power at arm’s length, the end result is the same. More nuclear power would result in more nuclear accidents, more radioactive waste generation, and more money tossed down the drain in a futile attempt to rush new reactor designs into commercialization as a carbon reduction strategy.

Dr. Caldeira probably hadn’t seen our January 9 post on GreenWorld, where I elaborated a bit more than the January 8 group letter on the obstacles facing nuclear power in that latter regard. So here is a relevant excerpt:

The problem (or one problem anyway, there are many) is that those reactors don’t actually exist except on paper and mock-ups in various labs. So, in order to be deployed, here’s what would have to happen:

*Full designs would have to be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for design certification. So far, no “Generation IV” designs have been submitted, nor are any ready for submission. And no utilities have expressed an interest in building any of these reactors, so the incentive to submit such designs is rather lacking. The design certification process, for technologies that the NRC already is basically familiar with (i.e., like the Westinghouse AP-1000 reactor that are fundamentally based on current Pressurized Water Reactor technology), takes several years. For radically new designs, the review process could be expected to take longer. Some might argue that other countries might not need to go through such a lengthy certification process, and in the abstract that’s true, but the reality is that the NRC is the gold standard for nuclear regulation across the world, and few, if any, countries can be expected to approve a radical reactor design that has not first been through the NRC process.

*Once certified (or perhaps while certification is underway), a utility would have to order such a reactor and submit an application for a Construction/Operating License to the NRC. Again, this is a legal process that takes a few years, and could be expected to take longer for a first-of-a-kind project. The public has a right to intervene in these procedures and challenge an application, and no one can expect that someone would not intervene. That’s how democracy works–even though the process is certainly stacked against intervenors…

*Then, the first reactor would have to be built, and it would be unreasonable to expect more than one or two radical new designs would be built at once. Electric utilities are traditionally pretty cautious and conservative; most are going to wait until someone else has gone first before they put their toe and several billion dollars into the water. Historically and reaching into today, reactor construction has averaged about eight years per reactor; some have taken much longer, a precious few have taken less.

*So now, we’ve already taken up at least 20 years, and we’ve only got the first one built. What was that Hansen, et.al. said about speedy deployment of nuclear and slow deployment of renewables? In 20 years, we are confident in projecting that renewables will play a major role–probably even a dominant role–in electricity generation, not only in the U.S. but around the world.

*Oh, and we haven’t even gotten to the need–if we’re going to use the Generation IV reactors Hansen touts that use reprocessed fuel as their fuel–to build a multi-billion dollar reprocessing infrastructure. That’s a technology that hasn’t worked well anywhere it’s been tried (France, the poster child for reprocessing, reprocesses only a tiny portion of its fuel; most of it, just like in ever other nuclear country in the world, sits in fuel pools and casks waiting for an eventual high-level waste dump to be constructed). Did we mention that reprocessing is even dirtier and more dangerous than the reactors themselves? Or that reprocessing, unlike Hansen’s claims, doesn’t reduce the volume of high-level radioactive waste that must ultimately be stored? So we have to add some more years and many billions of dollars for this infrastructure to be built–which again would require massive government support.

Hansen has argued we need to streamline the regulatory processes. That, of course, is what Congress already did back in the 1990s, when it moved from the old two-step licensing process that was in place when all currently operating reactors were built, to the one-step process that exists now. How can it be further streamlined? By cutting the public out of the process entirely? We’re confident Dr. Hansen would vociferously–and very correctly–argue against cutting the public out of the regulatory process for the Keystone XL pipeline. That he favors a particular technology–and one as potentially damaging as nuclear power–means it’s ok to cut the public out of it? We don’t think so. And, in the real world, that’s not going to happen anyway. Nuclear power and democracy have never co-existed very warmly, but the public does have some rights and trying to take those away would cause a serious shitstorm. We promise.

If all of the above actually happened, think about it: We’d have spent decades waiting for this
“solution” to be implemented and at the same time we’d have spent untold billions of dollars–trillions if the thousands of reactors it would take for nuclear to make a meaningful dent in carbon emissions were actually built. That’s time and a lot of money we could and should be spending on deploying renewables, improving energy storage, building the distributed grid, improving energy efficiency and the like. In that sense, going nuclear would actually be counterproductive and delay real carbon reductions.

While there is obviously some opinion and interpretation thrown in there, those are entirely based on facts presented, and the fact is that when it comes to nuclear power we either have to build thousands of new–but current generation–reactors worldwide in the next two or three decades (and Dr. Caldeira himself, appropriately, rejects that option as unacceptable) or, if we want to go the “safer” route advocated by Dr. Caldeira, we have to wait even longer. And with only some 440 reactors operable worldwide currently despite nearly 60 years of deployment, the world has not shown itself capable of undertaking that kind of massive construction schedule even for the dirty, dangerous and expensive reactor designs that exist now–and that brought us Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. Oh, and by the way, going nuclear also means replacing about 90% or so of those existing 440 reactors, as, even with license renewals, most will be retired by mid-century.

Dr. Caldeira also misses another critical point. He charges us with “a technological myopia,” writing:

There is no justification for the claim that this important type of electricity generation can never be made sufficiently safe and inexpensive.

To say that an entire category of technology can never be sufficiently improved is, I think, to adopt a position of technological myopia, where one lacks to the capacity to imagine that future technologies can differ substantially from today’s technologies.”

“Never” is a long time. And while it’s true that I believe that an inherently dangerous technology like nuclear power can never be made sufficiently safe, that was not the point made in our letter. To reiterate: the point we were making and continue to make is that there is nothing in the history of or current experience in nuclear power that suggests that it can “be made sufficiently safe and inexpensive” in the time frame these very scientists have forcefully argued is absolutely vital for our planet to achieve the necessary carbon reductions. If anything, at least on the cost front, the nuclear picture continues to worsen. Unlike in decades past, utilities are not only cancelling proposed new reactors for cost reasons (which has been a consistent reality over the decades), they are now closing paid-for operating reactors because they are too expensive compared to the alternatives. No one is closing operating wind or solar plants for cost reasons, nor ending energy efficiency programs either…

But, even while Dr. Caldeira berates us for a “technological myopia,” he turns around and does the exact same thing with regard to renewables. Thus he writes,

Were I king of the world, I would decree that solar, wind, and efficiency would be the primary means we deploy to solve the climate problem.

But there is no energy storage system that works at the scale of the modern megalopolis. We need a way to power civilization when the sun is not shining and when the wind is not blowing. In a modern real economy, not ruled by benevolent kings, reliable power is required at competitive prices. There are very few technologies that can provide this reliable baseload power. Fossil fuels and nuclear power are the two leading candidates.

This shows that Dr. Caldeira is simply not up on the vast and accelerating changes overtaking the generation and distribution of electricity. The concept of “reliable baseload power” served the nation, and much of the world, well during the 20th century. It brought relatively affordable electricity to the masses, and that was undeniably important. But the concept is losing meaning as we move further into the 21st century and technology continues its ever-accelerating march.

We report daily on this blog in our Nuclear Newsreel section about new advances in energy storage, distributed generation, solar and wind power–both large and small-scale, energy efficiency, and more; and especially how all of these are fitting together to create a new system of providing electricity. The goal is not “baseload” power, which is just a euphemism for large, centralized power plants, the goal is “reliable” power–electricity whenever and wherever it’s needed. And technology is quickly bringing us to the point where large centralized power plants are not nearly as relevant as they once were (not that they are irrelevant entirely, it’s true that New York City will never power itself with rooftop solar and wind–large power plants will continue to be needed, but not at current levels, and not with today’s dominant technologies); and to some degree at least can even interfere with the new systems being built.

Not that we’re there yet, of course. Electricity demand is down–for a few years due to the Great Recession, but now it appears primarily as a result of effective energy efficiency programs, especially at the state level. But a lot more needs to be done in this arena. Renewables still provide a very small amount of our nation’s, and the world’s electricity. But they are growing almost exponentially, and unlike nuclear power, their costs are going down–so fast it has bankrupted some solar companies who couldn’t keep up with the price reductions. Energy storage is in many respects in its infancy as a technology; but there again, new developments and improvements are announced on a near-daily level.

Which brings us to this: given that the U.S., and the world, has limited resources; where would you put your money? Or, on a macro level, where should we collectively put our money? In a nuclear technology that has over-promised and under-delivered for 60 years in the probably-vain hope that it will be different this time? Or in the technologies that are growing rapidly and cost-effectively and that can be deployed faster (and that, by the way, have the advantage of being safe and clean; don’t forget there are other pollutants in this world than carbon and nuclear power emits more than its fair share of them)?

It seems to us, based on the facts, that if the goal is to reduce or eliminate carbon emissions from the electricity sector as quickly and affordably as possible, the choice is self-evident.

As energy experts, we listen to climate scientists like Dr. Caldeira. We believe them. We know the U.S. and the world need to act and we push for that every day. As climate scientists, we hope Dr. Caldeira will listen to the many energy experts (and yes, advocates) like the signers of our letter. Time is running low. Nuclear power cannot do the job needed. And we need to act and push for real climate solutions every day.

Michael Mariotte
January 23, 2014

The Grist article with Dr. Caldeira’s e-mail can be found here.

To receive GreenWorld by e-mail as new posts are published, send an e-mail with your name and address to nirsnet@nirs.org. We’ll send you an invitation to do so. Note, invitation will come from a GreenWorld address, not a nirs.org address, so look for it!

The ongoing debate on nuclear power and climate change | GreenWorld