Nuclear Power Protested From Copenhagen to Washington

Friday 11 December 2009

At the U.N. Climate Summit in Copenhagen yesterday, members of environmental groups that are part of the international Don't Nuke the Climate campaign placed a radiation-protection mask on the city's iconic Little Mermaid statue.

The protests are leading up to tomorrow's international "Don't Nuke the Climate!" action day, with more than 200 actions planned in a dozen countries.

Here in the United States, the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) -- a nuclear power watchdog group with offices in Asheville, N.C. -- has several actions planned for today and tomorrow. Also involved are Public Citizen, Beyond Nuclear, Friends of the Earth and the Chesapeake Safe Energy Coalition.

On Friday morning, activists with those groups will gather at the Department of Energy for Christmas-themed street theater to protest the already-proposed $18.5 billion in taxpayer loan guarantees for the construction of new nuclear reactors, including projects underway in South Carolina and Georgia. That will be followed at noon with a debate between Michael Mariotte of NIRS and Alex Flint of the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry advocacy group. While the debate is being held primarily for the benefit of congressional staff, the public is invited to attend.

NIRS is also organizing congressional call-in days on Dec. 11 and 12. The callers will be asking their Senators to keep nuclear power subsidies out of the climate bill now being considered.

Yesterday the three Senators who are taking the lead in crafting the climate bill -- John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) -- released a broad outline of the measure in a letter to President Obama [pdf]. Aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions "in the range" of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, it calls for increased incentives for offshore oil and gas drilling and for so-called "clean coal" technology -- as well as for new nuclear reactor construction:

American has lost its nuclear technology manufacturing base, and we must rebuilt it in order to compete in the global marketplace. Our legislation will encourage the construction of new nuclear power plants and provide funding to train the next generation of nuclear workers. We will make it easier to finance the construction of new nuclear power plants and improve the efficiency of the licensing process for traditional as well as small modular reactors, while fully respecting safety and environmental concerns. In addition, we support the research and development of new, safe ways to minimize nuclear waste.

Two moderate Senators -- Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) -- plan to release a competing proposal today that would reportedly set a price on carbon emissions and return most of the revenue to consumers who will face higher fuel costs. The average household would receive a tax-free refund of about $1,100 a year, the New York Times reports.

The protesters say that new nuclear plants do not offer a real solution to climate change because it takes about 10 years to build a single reactor -- longer than we can wait to start making carbon reductions -- and because those reactors are enormously expensive, sucking up investments that could be spent on more efficient technologies.

In addition, the protesters point out that nuclear power does in fact produce greenhouse gases -- when reactors are constructed and in the mining, transport and reprocessing of fuel. At the same time, global warming puts nuclear plants at risk, with a growing number of reactors being shut down due to summer heat waves and droughts that impact their cooling systems.

To date, more than 850 organizations worldwide have signed a statement that says, "We do not support construction of new nuclear reactors as a means of addressing the climate crisis. Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power." More than 50,000 people in 112 countries have signed a similar petition in the past two months.

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.

Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.

Let's be reasonable. We need

Sun, 12/13/2009 - 12:19 — Anonymous (not verified)

Let's be reasonable. We need a power source that produces abundant energy, is stable, is independent from foreign fuel, is producing very little CO2, and is not endangering human life. Nuclear power meets all the criteria better than any other source of energy. Coal claims far too many lives (mining), and is heavily polluting. Solar, hydroelectric, wind fluctuate widely. Natural gas is too expensive to be used on a wide scale. I think it's important to give nuclear power a level of consideration that is honest and practical.

Invisible radioactive

Sun, 12/13/2009 - 16:08 — Garrett Connelly (not verified)

Invisible radioactive pollution is emitted from nuclear power plants. Nuclear power plants cannot be insured and they require taxpayer subsidized investment.

Look, here we already have

Sun, 12/13/2009 - 16:15 — Gurka (not verified)

Look, here we already have comment from an advocate of nuclear, with the ususal Safe And Clean, blah blah. It is impressing how quickly the nuke lobby can place their hired comments. They must be in panic, now that an increasing number of people are getting interested in climate and energy and are starting to study the topic.

I grew up by the Hanford

Sun, 12/13/2009 - 18:05 — Anonymous (not verified)

I grew up by the Hanford plant whose radioactive waste has seeped into the Columbia River in Washington, down through Oregon and on. My family saw birth defects although we will never know for sure the source. There is nothing more precious than clean water and air. Nuclear power risks all of this primarily for the wealth of a few.....certainly not for the good of the planet. Let's invest in solar, wind, geothermal, conservation, bioenergies with the same amount of money siphoned to support dirty (including nucelar) energy.

I consider myself a

Sun, 12/13/2009 - 18:27 — Lane Baldwin (not verified)

I consider myself a reasonably "reasonable" person. And I disagree with the thought - paid or not - that nuclear energy is "not endangering." It most certainly is a danger, and a grave one at that - to _all_ life. It takes huge amounts of water to extract the material, said water then being _radioactive_ and full of toxins. So, that's one water table completely poisoned. Storage after use is counted in hundreds, even thousands, of years - and the leaks of which are, again, extremely toxic. Another biosphere destroyed. Isn't that danger enough? Unless you are willing to either live on the water and land devastated by either activity, you have no legitimate right to tell others to be "reasonable." ... As for solar and wind power, if we had spent as much effort and money on those technologies, as well as geothermal power, energy saving technologies, even cold fusion for that matter, we'd be doing just fine. Consider that the sun is indeed the largest _nuclear_ power generator in our reality, yet we sniff and turn up our nose at the thought of harnessing that power. Consider that T. Boone Pickens, a self-made, Texas oil _billionaire_, is investing very heavily in wind farms in what he calls the wind alley of the US, that being the entire Midwest, down through Texas and OK. Hydroelectric is, in my mind, another technology we need to get away from because it has extreme impact on us in many ways, not the least of which is that dams destroy natural, successful water tables, and put millions of acres of very good farm land under water. And yet, we never seem to consider hydroelectric in the oceans, where there is already virtually incalculable hydraulic energy that could be more benignly tapped, with far less damage to natural systems. In order to think about any of that, however, one would need to do two things: 1) Take into consideration the long-term impact to succesive generations with a committment to holding in trust the natural resources upon which all live depends, and 2) Remove one's self from the box of corporate thinking to realize that what is good for corporations is often in direct conflict with what is good for the billions of individuals that live on this planet. The corporations whose very existence relies upon a particular technology, be it petroleum, nuclear, coal, must automatically promote the use of said technologies to ensure their own survival...and are more than willing to skew the facts, to put it nicely. They're also more than willing to encourage their governments to engage in wars to secure natural resources - and we're not talking just the US here. It's long past time that we stopped destroying the ecosystem that supports life on this planet. There is no other way to truly secure the survival of our species. But, then again, that's just me. ~~ Lane Baldwin - lanebaldwin.com

Well, if you consider that

Sun, 12/13/2009 - 21:42 — Realist (not verified)

Well, if you consider that first post an advocate of nuclear then you can =certain that this post will be a follower of nuclear power. Indeed, the ONLY realistic means of providing our CURRENT energy system will be from nuclear power and not from alternative energy resources. Although alternative energy resources could be the secondary energy source, but if you TRULY want to become 'self-sufficient' then nuclear power must be included. Why is that France, a country that have nuclear power plants, can provide for the entire nation? Is it not reasonable that if you want to use as little bit of land as possible than nuclear power plants? If you want to have the equivalent power needed to sustain this nation, then you need huge swaths of land or shorelines or digging up for geothermal sources just to sustain current energy output. Without having to resort to developing local oil drilling and gas exploration to preserve a sustainable habitat and environment, nuclear will be your answer.

Realist 02:42 - you didn't

Mon, 12/14/2009 - 07:29 — Lane Baldwin (not verified)

Realist 02:42 - you didn't address the very real problem of poisoning the environment. As for "huge swaths of land"... not really. For instance, solar and photovoltaic panels can be installed on roof tops. Geothermal can mean something as simple as building (at least partly) into the ground. In my area, many farmers are more than happy to lease land to wind farms, so that the land becomes dual use. The problem is that we're not really even _trying_ to develop these technologies in the US. ~~ Lane Baldwin - lanebaldwin.com

Conservation is the best and

Mon, 12/14/2009 - 12:14 — Garrett Connelly (not verified)

Conservation is the best and the most rapid source of power. Consider that power use per capita in the US has doubled since 1960, while per capita use has not risen at all in California. And even California is not as low as Europe, which has plenty of annoying blinking lights and neon signs it could turn off.

To Lane Baldwin: any kind of

Mon, 12/14/2009 - 13:54 — Realist (not verified)

To Lane Baldwin: any kind of technology will have adverse effects even with the intention of preventing and making less mistakes. I have heard that wind farms could built on farmlands or that solar panels can be installed on the roofs of houses but lets be honest here okay? I am not trying to belittle the thought that alternative energy resources such as geothermal, solar, wind, and other sources of energy can have a potential place as the PRIMARY source of energy. As I look forward into the near future, AT THE VERY MOMENT, if you want to have LARGE quantities of energy then nuclear WILL outstrip CURRENT alternative energy technologies DESPITE its quite obvious and somewhat large impact on the environment. Would I choose oil and gas technology over nuclear technology? I certainly see that nuclear will eventually supersede oil and gas technology in the near future. But RIGHT now, as a realist myself, nuclear will be the PRIMARY source of self sustained resource without using so much of our products on oil and gas. Our entire technology has been practically BUILT around oil and gas products! Ever used plastics? or heating a stove or turning a faucet on to 'hot'? Or even using a computer? All of it comes from oil and gas usage. Until alternative energy resources REACH to the level of sustainability for replacing nuclear power as the only alternative energy primary source then why not develop nuclear power at the moment and continue extensive research into alternative energy technology until then? Or how about this why not take out the subsidy for oil and gas companies and place incentives for speeding up alternative energy companies? And no subsidies for them as well just use a simple tax credit to give them the necessary boost for investors to invest in. Meanwhile, nuclear has to be developed in order to replace current oil and gas technologies that have built up nations for more than 2 centuries.

and thay'll probably need a

Mon, 12/14/2009 - 16:09 — jack (not verified)

and thay'll probably need a new FLUX CAPICATATOR to go with that SUPER ACCIDENTAL COLLIDER ACCELERATOR aka chaos,(attraction to & from revulsion or war or horror and terror)"thing Too,that's climate change/control for ya,,,any way the wind blows with these KLooWNZ is probably not that good of a tomorrow,with or without clouds, wheather or dreams,just solid state autmons or maybe idiot bots would "CONSERVE the most energy of all, (DEATH & SAFETY)age before beauty,women and children first,the ozzy ha to ya ,technocracy

In the end humans need

Fri, 12/18/2009 - 05:12 — Anonymous (not verified)

In the end humans need electric power because it is essential to modern living. We do not want to go back to the bad, old days of massive infant mortality, smoky cities and poor nutrition. The numbers will rule. It is about giga watt-hours and dollars. No amount of idealogy can change the rules of nature. So forget photovoltaics... they cannot compete yet without massive state subsidies and produce a tiny amount of energy. The only viable solution currently on the table for society's base load needs is the nuclear one. This is something many up and coming nations have realised. So idealists in the 'developed' countries can rant on all they like about so-called renewables, meanwhile the developing nations are planning for a nuclear future.