Nuclear Power Is Not Carbon-Free ECU 662 Michel Lee - YouTube

Nuclear Power Is Not Carbon-Free ECU 662 Michel Lee - YouTube:

Enviro Close-Up #662 -- Nuclear Power Is Not Carbon-Free Michel Lee, an attorney and senior analyst for Promoting Health and Sustainable Energy (PHASE), shatters the current pitch of the nuclear industry that nuclear power is carbon-free. “It’s flat-out false,” says Lee. The nuclear fuel cycle—which includes mining, milling and enrichment of uranium—is carbon intensive, she notes. And nuclear plants emit Carbon-14, a radioactive form of carbon with a half-life of 5,700 years. Nuclear power “is an extremely ineffective way to deal with climate change,” says Lee. She says media accepting it as carbon-free and an answer to climate change are doing “reporting of press releases.” Further, she tells of how the nuclear industry “would shrivel up and die without subsidies” from government.” She speaks of environmental justice and how nuclear power “has left an astonishingly horrific legacy on uranium-mining communities, in the United States mostly Native American communities,” and minority communities are being “targeted” for nuclear waste. She states: “Nuclear is particularly poorly suited to democracy.”

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

We Need Renewable Energy, Not Nuclear Power! | NIRS

The nuclear industry is back at it again: promoting dirty, dangerous, expensive reactors at the public’s expense. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is reviewing an “Early Site Permit” application for up to a dozen reactors in Tennessee – with potentially no evacuation plans. This would be a dangerous precedent.

This time, the industry wants us to believe the “solution” is small, modular reactors – or SMRs. Their idea is to design each reactor smaller, and combine a bunch of them into one big power plant. However, these reactors aren’t really “small” and putting a bunch of them in one place only means more potential for disaster. The Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plant only had three reactors operating when disaster occurred in 2011. They all melted down.

You’d think that would have taught NRC a lesson. But no – NRC is considering exempting SMRs from longstanding emergency planning requirements, even eliminating the need to have evacuation plans for nearby communities in the case of a meltdown.

Even worse, NRC is flatly ignoring the reality that there is no justification for nuclear power. NRC is supposed to consider both the need for electricity and the alternatives to a nuclear power plant, but its review of the Tennessee Valley Authority’s application ignores both. TVA’s demand for electricity is declining, not growing, and solar, wind, and energy efficiency are far cleaner, safer, and more affordable than the theoretical, untested SMRs.

Send a public comment to NRC, demanding that the agency withdraw its Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and conduct a new, objective study.

SIGN NOW!

Tell FERC One More Time: Stop the $100+ Billion Nuclear-Coal Bailout!

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.

FERC is taking a final round of public comments until November 7. And we need to deliver thousands more 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!

Nuclear Information and Resource Service
nirs.org | Facebook