In 2006, the Florida Legislature gave Progress Energy and Florida Power & Light what seems to be unlimited access to your wallet to pay in advance for nuclear projects in Florida. Since 2008, the Florida Public Service Commission has approved the utility companies taking over $1 billion dollars in "nuclear cost recovery" out of our pockets!
Progress and FPL haven’t even committed to building the new nuclear reactors yet, and if they don’t build them--and we are working to stop them!-- the utilities will not be issuing any refunds. Nuclear cost recovery is really a tax--and we have no vote!
Fortunately, Representative Michelle Rehwinkel-Vasilinda and Senator Mike Fasano are working hard to advocate for Floridians by introducing bills to repeal the nuclear early cost recovery provision. If passed, these bills could effectively put an end to new nuclear reactor proposals in Florida.
Unfortunately, both bills are currently held up in committee and may not gain traction. That is where YOU come in! Please take a moment to act below and demand that these bills be given fair consideration. After all, it is your money the utilities are using to finance these risky projects. Instead, Florida needs investments in more affordable and less risky energy efficiency and renewable energy choices.
Your letters will go to Florida Governor Rick Scott, the relevant Committee chairmen, and your own state legislators. But before you send your letter, please take a moment to use the icons above to help spread the word to your friends and colleagues and across your social networks.
As always, please feel free to edit the sample letter to reflect your own concerns. This action is limited to people with addresses in Florida.
For each of the past two years, the Obama administration has asked Congress to approve $36.5 Billion in new taxpayer loans for reactor construction. But thanks to your activism and the work of an ongoing informal coalition of DC groups (NIRS, PSR, FoE, UCS, NRDC & TCS), he didn't get it.
This year, the administration shouldn't even ask for it. Let's tell President Obama that now: take action below.
The new FY 2013 budget is scheduled to be released on February 7. Now is the time--before it's in print--to tell President Obama to stop trying to bail out the nuclear power industry at taxpayer expense.
That $36.5 Billion previously requested would have been on top of the $18.5 Billion provided during the Bush Administration (along with $4 Billion for unneeded uranium enrichment plants). $8.2 Billion of that has been conditionally approved for the Vogtle nuclear project in Georgia; $10.3 Billion remains in the pot.
But as the Solyndra solar collapse shows, these loan programs are inherently financially risky. And no energy project is riskier than nuclear power. Add to that the fact that the Vogtle loan alone is about 15 times more taxpayer money than Solyndra ever received!
Not only should President Obama request no more money for nuclear loans, he should end the entire nuclear loan program and withdraw the approval of the Vogtle loan. Now that would be a budget move that makes a lot of sense--and would make Americans safer to boot! Tell him that now.
After Fukushima, there is simply no excuse to continue this loan program. Fukushima showed the world that nuclear power is simply too dangerous to continue. Germany, Italy, Switzerland and others have gotten the message. It's time the U.S. got the message too. The first step is to end taxpayer funding for new reactors. President Obama can do that with the eraser at the end of his pencil. Tell him now is the time to use that eraser.
As always, please feel free to edit the sample letter to reflect your own concerns. And please help spread the word of this action on Facebook, Twitter and other networking sites (and your own e-mail lists) using the handy icons at the top right of this page.
Note to our international friends: the White House accepts international e-mails, so please participate in this action! You might want to edit the letter to tell President Obama how nuclear construction and financing in the U.S. adversely affects your own country.
Of course, it doesn't take an accident: even routine operations at Indian Point pollutes the Hudson River, kills enormous quantities of fish and marine life, and releases radiation into the air.
That's why many environmental groups in New York are working non-stop to close Indian Point, and why Governor Andrew Cuomo is working to prevent a renewal of its license by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
We support these efforts and we ask you to help by writing your state legislators now, and telling them to take a public stand in support of Indian Point shutdown.
We urge you to amplify your message by calling them as well.
Then please help spread the word among your friends and colleagues. Let's make sure thousands of New Yorkers explain very clearly to the NY legislature that there's no more sitting on the sidelines: it's time to take a public stand and close Indian Point.
Note: please feel free to edit the sample letter provided to reflect your own concerns. And if you know your legislators already have taken a stand in support of Indian Point shutdown (a few have done so), please thank them!
You'd think in the post-Fukushima era of vastly increased public concern over nuclear power safety, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission might be a wee bit sensitive to its responsibility to regulate nuclear power.
You'd think at a time when hundreds of Occupy encampments across the country are bringing new attention to the ways large corporations--too often with government support--put their profits above the public's interest, that the NRC might be a little careful about placing the interests of nuclear utilities at the head of the line.
But in a little-noticed Strategic Planning document released for public comment, the NRC shows its tone-deafness to public concern and outrage.
On the very first page of this new plan (page 5 of the document, which can be found here), the following paragraph appears:
Principles of Good Regulation The safe and secure use of radioactive materials and nuclear fuels for beneficial civilian purposes is enabled by the agency's adherence to the following principles of good regulation: independence, openness, efficiency, clarity, and reliability. In addition, regulatory actions are effective, realistic, and timely.
Nowhere in any of its statutory documents (and we've checked) does it say that the purpose of NRC regulation is to "enable" the use of radioactive materials and nuclear fuels.
This is more than just semantics: if the purpose of NRC regulation is to enable use of nuclear power, then how could the agency ever shut down a nuclear reactor, no matter how dangerous it might be? And given this language, if the NRC ever did try to do that, would a utility be able to sue the agency for preventing, rather than enabling, a reactor's operation?
Just as Occupy Wall Street is changing the tenor of the debate in the U.S. over stark issues like income inequality and the role of the 1%; so do we need to change the tenor of the debate on nuclear issues--away from what government can do for nuclear utilities and toward a new emphasis on public health and safety; indeed, away from nuclear power and toward a nuclear-free carbon-free energy system.
An NRC strategic plan may seem like a small issue, but by vastly overstepping its bounds, the NRC has given us the opportunity to begin to change that debate. Let's make sure they hear from all of us!
Your comments on this strategic plan are due by the end of the day Wednesday, November 2, 2011. Please send your comments in below.
While we're not sure of the exact reason (we believe your comments most likely simply overloaded the BRC's e-mail servers), it is clear that the BRC did not receive most comments submitted from October 27-October 31. The BRC says it has now fixed the problem, and has extended the comment deadline until November 7, 2011. Please re-submit your comments now, or, if you didn't get a chance to before the original Oct. 31 deadline, please submit for the first time!
October 27, 2011
The Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (BRC) was formed by President Obama and Energy Secretary Steven Chu in the wake of the administration's sensible decision to end the proposed Yucca Mountain, Nevada radioactive waste project.
The BRC was not charged with finding a new site for the nation's high-level radioactive waste; rather, it was charged with examining the potential options for coping with the massive waste problem now on our hands.
Unfortunately, the BRC was stacked with nuclear industry interests and its final draft report, which relies heavily on the long-discredited notion of establishing new "interim" storage sites for radioactive waste, seems much more interested in assuring continued generation of radioactive waste than addressing its fundamental problems. Establishment of new "interim" storage sites, with no permanent solution for radioactive waste storage in site, would simply result in mass waste transportation campaigns that would needlessly endanger millions of Americans--a concept that in the 1990s correctly led to the coining of the phrase "Mobile Chernobyl." In addition, the BRC draft report does not explicitly reject the dangerous and dirty practice of reprocessing nuclear waste, as it should.
Below, we have provided rather lengthy sample comments for you to submit. Please feel free to edit, shorten (or lengthen!), these comments to reflect your own views and concerns. But please do comment!
This action is open to everyone regardless of where you live.
In late September, the White House launched a new website to enable people to directly petition the Obama administration. The White House promised a formal response to all petitions which received 5,000 signatures within 30 days.
NIRS decided to try out that site and created a petition that demands something President Obama has the clear power to do: to stop asking Congress for taxpayer subsidies for new nuclear reactors, beginning with the next federal budget.
As it turns out, the White House website and petition-signing process was flawed, cumbersome and enormously frustrating for many people. As of today, nearly 12,000 people (11,981 to be exact) tried to sign this petition directly through NIRS own servers. Thousands more tried to sign through Facebook, Twitter and the like. Only 3,815 of these thousands have been successful so far.
While we still hope to reach the 5,000 threshold for a formal White House response (and you can sign the White House petition here), we decided to make sure the voices of everyone are heard!
Please send a letter to President Obama, with the identical content as the petition (with one extra line expressing frustration with the petition process) to the White House below. Let's make sure all our voices are heard! And let's not stop at 5,000 letters--please share this page widely (just use the icons above) and deluge the White House with your raised voices.
International friends: as you know, what happens in the U.S. can certainly affect the entire world. You can participate in this letter campaign, and we encourage you to do so.
You may, as always, edit the letter to add your own concerns.
On October 24, 2011 the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) will vote on whether to authorize Progress Energy Florida (PEF) and/or Florida Power & Light (FPL) to spend $20 Million and $196 Million, respectively, for licensing, planning and infrastructure for nuclear reactors at least 10 years in the future.
This is in addition to $615 million already approved for PEF and $248 million approved for FPL. PEF is seeking re-confirmation of $115 Million already approved but which was deferred until now. If all amounts are approved, the total pre-payment--from ratepayers--for new nuclear reactors will total $1.079 Billion. All of these funds would be billed to ratepayers; some immediately, some interest only and then the principal, whether or not the reactors ever are built.
New power plant construction in Florida is contingent upon the utility demonstrating that there is a need for the power. That need does not exist in Florida. Electricity demand has dropped dramatically. Moreover, conservation and efficiency can easily meet new demand. There should be no rush to build new power plants, especially given our difficult economic times.
Please protect Florida's consumers. Tell your legislators and the Public Service Commission that ratepayers must not be forced to act as a bank for wealthy utilities. Tell them to deny any ratepayer pre-payment for new nuclear reactors. Please feel free to edit the sample letter provided.
On May 27, in response to the urgent pleas of Fukushima parents and supporting citizens’ groups, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology announced that it intended to restrict the annual radiation limit at Fukushima schools for the current academic year (April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012) to 1 millisievert (mSv). This standard, however, does not include radiation exposure outside of school, radiation received between the March 11 nuclear accident and March 31, nor internal exposure. Children already have absorbed several times more than 1 mSv. We demand that Japan’s central government and Fukushima authorities implement the following measures without delay.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, backed by several in Congress, has come up with the stupidest idea we've seen in a long time: creation of a National Park over parts of three states to memoralize the Manhattan Project and the creation of the single most destructive invention in history: the atomic bomb!
We're not kidding. Read this article posted yesterday on the New York Times website.
We don't think the history of the Manhattan project or nuclear weapons should be swept under the rug by any means. An appropriate museum might be warranted, although New Mexico alone already has the National Atomic Museum, the Bradbury Museum and the Los Alamos Historical Museum. A memorial to the victims of nuclear weapons in Japan and of nuclear testing in the U.S. and elsewhere would make a lot of sense.
But a National Park? Something more typically reserved for our great national treasures like the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, etc? Can you imagine pitching your tent next to a replica of the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima?
As we approach the August 6-9 anniversary of Hiroshima/Nagasaki, this kind of glorification of atomic power in its rawest form is particularly galling. And when there are so many critical issues being ignored in Washington, it's distressing to see such a monstrous concept even being considered. This idea should have been put in the recycle bin when it was first contemplated.
So, please take this opportunity to tell your Congressmembers to drop this idea, and get to work on the real issues facing our nation and planet.
As always, please feel free to edit the sample letter. You must have a U.S. address to participate in this action. Please use the icons above to spread the word through your social networks.
The comment period has been extended to August 18, 2011. The nuclear industry is waging an all-out campaign to get its supporters and employees to comment. Please send your comments in today!
Thanks to years of inaction, hundreds of outdated power plants--mostly nuclear and coal--across the country use antiquated cooling water systems that scoop up massive amounts of water from local waterways and trap and crush aquatic life to death in the process. Each year these power plants kill billions of fish from our lakes, streams, and coastal waters.
Decades ago, the Environmental Protection Agency was supposed to come up with new, national requirements to modernize power plant cooling systems and fix this problem. But instead the agency is now caving to industry pressure and has proposed a new cooling water rule that takes a weak stance and punts decision making to the states on a case-by-case basis. This approach hasn’t worked in the past and won’t work now.
Even worse, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) has launched an all-out campaign through its Nuclear Advocacy Network to demand an even weaker approach from EPA. NEI claims that more than 7,000 people already have sent letters to the EPA from its side. We need to counter their efforts, and quickly.
Urge EPA to stand up for our waters and wildlife. You can submit a comment below urging EPA to adopt a strong standard for modernizing power plant cooling systems in its final rule.
This action is open to everyone. Please help spread the word on your networking sites with the icons above. As always, please feel free to edit the sample letter to reflect your own concerns (note: to ensure that the EPA considers your comment, the subject line cannot be changed).
We have learned that on Thursday, July 14, the Senate Energy Committee is slated to vote on several bills, including its first post-Fukushima nuclear legislation.
Unfortunately, this legislation isn't about nuclear safety; it isn't about implementing safe, clean alternatives to dirty, dangerous nuclear power; it isn't following the lead of Germany, Italy and elsewhere in ending the threat of nuclear catastrophe in the United States.
It's about pretending Fukushima never happened. It's about building more nuclear reactors in the U.S. And it's absolutely unacceptable.
There are three bills the Senate Energy Committee is likely to consider on Thursday:
S. 512 would require the Secretary of Energy to carry out programs to develop and demonstrate two "small modular nuclear reactor" designs, one of 300 MW maximum and one of 50 MW maximum. By comparison, new reactors being ordered by utilities are 1,000 MW or more, but several problematic early U.S. reactors--like Yankee Rowe, Big Rock Point, LaCrosse and others--were actually smaller than 300 MW. Fukushima Unit 1 was only 460 MW--not a lot larger than these "small modular" reactors.
Here is a factsheet from our friends at IEER & PSR on some of the problems with "small modular reactors."
S. 1067 would waste $250 million taxpayer dollars over the next five years on a hopeless effort: it would create a new Department of Energy program to try to reduce the manufacturing and construction costs of both large and small new reactors.
And the Committee also may resume consideration of CEDA (Clean Energy Deployment Administration) legislation. This would set up a "clean energy" bank to provide taxpayer loans and loan guarantees to eligible technologies. This legislation does not yet have a bill number, and we haven't seen the full text yet. While there appears to be some improvement over earlier versions (it may not allow unlimited taxpayer loans), it still perpetuates the fiction that nuclear power and some types of coal are "clean energy." Until these dirty and dangerous technologies are removed from the definition of clean energy, this type of legislation must be opposed. Otherwise, the "clean energy bank" will simply become another mechanism to channel taxpayer dollars into large, polluting and irresponsible companies that produce lethal radioactive waste, destroy mountains and generally are not deserving of any support.
You can take action below to tell the Senate that none of these bills are acceptable. Note: while only the Senate Energy Committee is considering these bills at this point, we are targeting the entire Senate because Senators do talk to each other....
You must have a U.S. address to participate in this action. Please use the icons above to spread the word on your networking sites.
The Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (BRC) was formed by President Obama and Energy Secretary Steven Chu in the wake of the administration's sensible decision to end the proposed Yucca Mountain, Nevada radioactive waste project.
The BRC was not charged with finding a new site for the nation's high-level radioactive waste; rather, it was charged with examining the potential options for coping with the massive waste problem now on our hands.
Unfortunately, the BRC was stacked with nuclear industry interests and frequently has appeared much more interested in assuring continued generation of radioactive waste rather than considering the concept of not adding to the damage already done nor of even seeking an environmentally, scientifically and socially acceptable means of coping with the issue.
To date, three BRC subcommittees have made recommendations to the full Commission. It's time for us all to weigh in.
Below, we have supplied some sample comments on these recommendations. You can view the full BRC recommendations at www.brc.gov. Please feel free to send the comments in as is, or add your own comments.
Some of the subcommittee recommendations--if adopted by the full Commission--would require Congressional action. Thus, through these comments, we are also beginning to lay the basis for our own upcoming actions if Congress does decide to tackle these issues.
As always, please help spread the word to your e-mail lists and on your networking sites with the handy icons above.
This action is open to all, regardless of where you live.
In February 2011, a New Hampshire engineer, Thomas Popik, and the Foundation for Resilient Societies submitted a Petition for Rulemaking to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission calling for installation of reliable and renewable backup power systems for irradiated (sometimes called "spent") fuel pools at nuclear sites to protect them from extended loss of offsite power events.
The Fukushima catastrophe demonstrates clearly the consequences of a loss of offsite power--to fuel pools and nuclear reactors alike. The NRC obviously must take substantive and speedy steps to address this issue.
The typical nuclear facility includes battery backup power that would last 4-8 hours, plus emergency diesel generators. While these generators were inoperable at Fukushima, and the accidents there took place in a relatively short amount of time, these generators are not designed to operate for extended periods of time.
This very prescient petition (PRM 50-96) originally was spawned by concern over large-scale solar flares that could cause long power outages in the U.S. As the Washington Post reported on June 21, 2011, a 2008 National Academy of Sciences study warned that a major solar storm "could knock out power in parts of the northeastern and northwestern United States for months, even years."
No U.S. nuclear reactor or fuel pool could withstand such a lengthy loss of power. Immense radiation releases would be certain.
The full text of Mr. Popik's well-researched petition is here (note, large pdf file)
You can submit your comments to the NRC in support of this petition below. Please feel free to edit the sample comments however you like. It's especially helpful to include information and your concerns about your local reactors and fuel pools.
Please help us spread the word: share this page on your networking sites with the icons above.
On April 13, our colleagues at Beyond Nuclear submitted a formal emergency petition to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to immediately suspend the operating license of all General Electric Mark 1 reactors in the U.S. (the same reactor design that failed so catastrophically at Fukushima) and to hold public meetings near every Mark I site. A list of the Mark 1 reactors can be found here. A factsheet on the 40-year history of the design deficiencies of the Mark I's can be found here. The full text of the petition can be found here.
On June 8, the NRC held a "public" meeting on this petition. Hundreds of people tried to call in and the NRC's system crashed, delaying the meeting for 1/2 hour. Eventually, more than 100 people successfully called in to the meeting. Only co-petitioners were allowed to speak, however.
Now we are asking all organizations and every person--especially the more than 7,500 who already have sent letters to their Congressmembers and President Obama demanding shutdown of these dangerous reactors--to join NIRS and other organizations and individuals in becoming Co-Petitioners to this petition. Let's make sure the NRC doesn't get off easy--let's make sure they know the people of the world are watching them. The Mark I's account for less than 4% of the U.S. electricity supply. Unlike the homes and livelihoods of the people near Fukushima, their power can easily be replaced. We need to close these reactors now.
Special Instructions for this Action:
Please edit the text of the message where appropriate and include in the text of the message your name, organization (if you are co-petitioning on behalf of an organization, delete if you are acting for yourself), address and e-mail address. You may also add to the text of the message to include your own concerns--however, please do not delete any of the existing text.
By becoming a co-petitioner, you are joining a legal process--although there are no legal requirements or costs placed on you. However, all information that you submit to the NRC will become part of the public record and may be published by the NRC on its website. We thus advise you NOT to include your phone number. The NRC may contact you via e-mail about the status of this petition.
Ready for a positive action? On Thursday, June 16, the Sustainable Energy Coalition (note: NIRS is a member) will hold its 14th annual Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Expo and Forum in the Cannon House Office Building on Capitol Hill.
There will be literally dozens of speakers and exhibitors well worth seeing. Here is a flier describing the event more fully. If you're in the DC area that day, you should drop by. Even more importantly, your Congressmembers and their staffs should drop by! Now more than ever, Congress needs to learn about renewable energy and efficiency technologies.
Please send a letter to your Congressmembers below and urge them to attend the Expo and learn more about building a genuinely safe and clean energy future.
Note: You must have a U.S. address to participate in this action.
The Senate Energy Committee did not vote on CEDA on May 26. A meeting will be scheduled for a vote sometime after the Senate's Memorial Day recess. Thus, there is still plenty of time to take this action!
May 25, 2011
The Senate Energy Committee is scheduled to consider tomorrow--May 26, 2011--a bill establishing a new "clean energy" bank called the Clean Energy Development Administration (CEDA).
Unfortunately, this "clean energy" bank is anything but a source for funding genuinely clean energy. In fact, both new nuclear reactors and certain coal projects would be eligible for unlimited taxpayer backed loans if this bank were to be realized.
A press release from our friends at Union of Concerned Scientists with more background on CEDA is here.
Please act quickly and tell your Senators--especially if they are on the Energy Committee--to reject CEDA as currently written. There is nothing "clean" about nuclear power, as a glance at any photo of Fukushima should make clear. Unless nuclear power and dirty coal are taken out of the CEDA program, it should be defeated.
Please spread the work quickly and widely with the icons above. As always, please feel free to edit the sample letter.
International friends: because this action is aimed at the U.S. Senate, you must have a U.S. address to participate.
The U.S. Congress this week is considering $1 TRILLION or more in budget cuts as part of its debt ceiling package, yet President Obama still wants an additional $36 Billion--on top of $18.5 Billion already approved by Congress--in taxpayer money for loans to wealthy nuclear utilities to build new nuclear reactors in the U.S?
This program must be ended--not expanded! Please tell your Senators to end this program entirely now. The world's third and fourth largest economies--Japan and Germany--are turning their backs on nuclear power and moving ahead with a new energy future based on safe, clean renewable energy and energy efficiency. So are Italy and Switzerland. The U.S. can and should do the same.
The good news is that the House has approved an energy appropriations bill with no increase in the nuclear loan program. But there remains a chance that one or more Senators could try to slip that money in. And besides, it's time to end the program entirely. When Congress is talking about taking a budget axe to necessary programs like Medicare and Social Security, there is no excuse to be spending money on dirty, dangerous and obsolete nuclear power.
Please help spread the word on Facebook, Twitter and other networking sites with the icons above.
As always, it is helpful to edit the sample letter to reflect your own concerns, include local issues, and the like. To our international friends; because this action is aimed at the U.S. Congress, you must have a U.S. address to participate.
Earlier this week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said it is likely that a bill to encourage the development of "small modular reactors" will be voted on this month. So the first post-Fukushima legislation to emerge from the U.S. Senate will be a bill to force taxpayers to pay for development of new nuclear reactors?
The bill would force taxpayers to pay 50% of the design cost for two new reactor designs, one of no more than 300 Megawatts, the other no more than 50 Megawatts. In addition, taxpayers would have to pay 25% of the costs to get these designs licensed by the NRC. The text of the bill, S. 512 is here.
Small does not mean safe, of course. At 439 MW, Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 wasn't much bigger than one of these reactors. But its explosion, and melting of 50-70% of its fuel, has been heard around the world.
And the idea behind small modular reactors (SMRs) is to put a lot of them--10 or so--in one location. One clear lesson from Fukushima is that crowding reactors together makes multiple reactor accidents more likely, and makes it more difficult to fight the consequences of an accident. This entire concept behind the SMRs must end.
Small also does not necessarily mean cheap. Reactors grew large because of economies of scale--building smaller ones wasn't cost-effective in the past, and it won't be cost-effective now. Thus, taxpayers are once again being asked to spend their money on an uneconomical technology that the utilities themselves won't spend their money on.
Tell your Senators below to wake up: not one more taxpayer dime for nuclear power--small, large or in-between!
Note: You must have a U.S. address to participate in this action.
The Grand Canyon is majestic, irreplaceable, and in dire need of protection from the nuclear power industry.
Uranium mining companies don't see one of the wonders of the world when they see the Grand Canyon, they see the chance to dig up some of their filthy fuel for nuclear reactors. And so they have been pressing the federal government to approve new uranium mines all around the Grand Canyon.
In June, thanks to your comments and those of hundreds of thousands of others, the Depatment of the Interior decided to withdraw about 1 million acres around the Grand Canyon from uranium mining for the next 20 years. But now, some House Republicans are trying to circumvent that decision and force the Interior Department to issue new mining permits. Here is an op-ed from House Progressive Caucus Chairman Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) in the July 27 Arizona Republic describing the issue.
Don't let them get away with it. Act now: use the sample letter below to tell Congress to protect the Grand Canyon and prevent it from being enveloped by the radioactive dust of a dying industry.
The clear lesson of the Fukushima disaster is that we must end the use of nuclear power, and move quickly to a nuclear-free carbon-free energy future. New uranium mines won't move us any closer to that goal--but they will threaten the health and safety of people in the region, and threaten the ability of people across the world to enjoy and marvel at one of our true natural wonders.
Please edit the sample letter with your own comments and thoughts about the need to protect the Grand Canyon. Please use the icons above to help spread the word of this campaign on Facebook, Twitter, and other networking sites.
You must have a U.S. address to participate in this action.
Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) has introduced the first nuclear bill in Congress that we've seen in a long time that actually is worthy of support. It doesn't do all we'd like, and given the current make-up of Congress even this is unlikely to pass, but it's a good first step.
We believe it is important to get as many co-sponsors as possible on this bill to set the stage for real progess in the next Congress.
HR 1242 would:
* Ensure that nuclear power plants and spent nuclear fuel pools can withstand and adequately respond to earthquakes, tsunamis, strong storms, long power outages, or other events that threaten a major impact.
* Require nuclear power plants to have emergency backup plans and systems that can withstand longer electricity outages.
* Require spent nuclear fuel to be moved into safer dry cask storage as soon as the fuel is sufficiently cooled to do so.
* Require the Department of Energy to factor in the lessons learned from the Fukushima meltdown when calculating the risk of default on loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants.
These are all common-sense steps that no Representative should be able to oppose. Please ask your Representative to co-sponsor this bill, and to let you know what he/she is doing about it. As always, feel free to edit the sample letter: reference to your local situation, reactors in your area, etc. are very helpful in convincing Members. And don't forget to share this action page on Facebook, Twitter and the like using the handy icons above.
Note: because it is aimed at the U.S. House of Representatives, you must have a U.S. address to participate.
The Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant is perched on the edge of the Pacific Ocean in an earthquake fault zone. The U.S. Geological Survey has found that the length and depth of the Shoreline fault (only discovered in 2008), and whether it runs under the plant or connects with the off-shore Hosgri fault, and whether a quake on one fault could trigger the other, producing larger magnitude earthquakes, are all unknown.
State Senator Sam Blakeslee, US Representative Lois Capps and the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors (unanimously) have called for a halt to Pacific Gas & Electric's (PG&E) relicensing process until state-of-the-art seismic analyses of the nearby fault zone are completed and independently reviewed. The state Public Utilities Commission requires this analysis during relicensing, and the Energy Commission recommends its completion prior to PG&E submitting a relicensing application to the NRC.
Although their current licenses won't begin to expire until 2024, and seismic studies will take only three to four years, PG&E refuses to halt relicensing. Despite PG&E's April 10 request for the NRC to hold final licensing until after completion of those studies, the Nuclear "Regulatory" Commission told the state Senate Energy Committee on April 14 that it will not do so. PG&E has fought the utilities and energy commissions' requirement and recommendations for years.
Therefore, this campaign has been initiated to urge Governor Jerry Brown and Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein to adopt and advocate the same position as our other representatives, and pressure the NRC to stop its Diablo Canyon relicensing process and the PUC to stop its proceedings on permitting PG&E to use rate payer money to fund relicensing and seismic studies. Please take a minute to sign the letter below to Brown, Boxer and Feinstein and then phone each of them with this message: Stop the Diablo Canyon relicensing process.
Note: This action is for California residents only.
More than two weeks after the earthquake and tsunami struck Japan, the unparalleled nuclear crisis at Fukushima shows no signs of abating. We continue to see extraordinary levels of radation at the plant site and continued high levels even outside the expanded evacuation zone.
The world's nuclear industry and governments have told the public that nuclear disasters are rare, and can only happen about once every 10,000 years. Instead, we have seen three in 32 years. They lied.
We must now act to prevent the next nuclear catastrophe. As a first step, in cooperation with grassroots activists across the U.S., we have developed a program for increased nuclear safety and security. If you support this program, please sign the petition. If you can sign on for your organization, please send your name, organization, city and state (country if outside the U.S.) to nirsnet@nirs.org. Note: we may use your organization's name in advertisements and other publicity to promote this program.
Please use the icons at the above right to promote this program and petition.
Thank you.
A Post-Fukushima Program for Increased Nuclear Security and Safety
Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous, and extraordinarily expensive. Routine operation of nuclear reactors releases toxic radiation, generates lethal radioactive waste, requires polluting uranium mining, and poses proliferation risks. The disaster at the Fukushima nuclear complex in Japan serves as a new reminder that nuclear accidents happen more frequently than governments and the nuclear industry admit, and that such accidents can be triggered by a myriad of man-made and natural factors.
We believe the U.S. must quickly develop a clear plan to phase-out existing nuclear reactors at the earliest possible date and replace their power with clean, sustainable energy sources. This phase-out implies a speedy end to nuclear fuel production, and to uranium mining, importation and processing.
The United States already has begun a transition to safe, clean, and affordable energy sources, including wind, solar and geothermal power, increased energy efficiency, smart grids and distributed generation technologies, and research into new technologies such as microalgae fuel. This transition must be accelerated.
We believe it is not only possible, but essential for the life of our country and planet, to attain a nuclear-free carbon-free energy future by mid-century. We believe this future can be attained at approximately the same percentage of GDP than is currently spent on energy if energy priorities are properly re-ordered. However, this future cannot be attained if tens of billions of dollars are spent on failed nuclear technology.
The ongoing disaster at Fukushima reminds us that the unexpected and the “impossible” CAN happen at any time. Specific steps that must be taken now to meet these goals include:
Immediately and permanently close the 23 General Electric Mark 1 reactors
23 U.S. reactors use the same General Electric Mark I design whose containments failed so dramatically at Fukushima. This design has been criticized by top AEC and NRC safety officials since 1971 as being particularly vulnerable under accident conditions. After the 1979 Three Mile Island accident, the NRC closed the other similar Babcock and Wilcox-designed reactors until a safety review and appropriate improvements could be implemented. In this case, there are fatal flaws in the GE Mark 1 design that are fundamental and cannot be fixed. These reactors contribute less than 4% of total US electricity production yet present a clear and proven danger to people across the United States. There are ample reserve supplies to cover the loss of power these reactors would represent.
Immediately close all reactors on or near seismic faults
Reactors on seismic faults, primarily in California and along the New Madrid Fault in the Midwest to the Southeast (though there are a few others) should be closed immediately pending an independent review of their capabilities to withstand major possible earthquakes, including failure of auxiliary facilities such as emergency diesel generators. This review must not only include “likely” earthquakes, but possible earthquakes. A clear lesson of Fukushima is that we must be prepared for abnormal but conceivable natural events. In the case of nuclear power, already fragile in its safety margins, reactors must be able to withstand such events. Nuclear reactors that cannot withstand conceivable—not just likely—natural disasters must close permanently.
Immediately remove all subsidies, particularly loan guarantees from the current federal budget; to be followed by repeal of the Price Anderson Act. A full-cost accounting study should be done of the civilian nuclear power fuel chain and the federal subsidies provided.
Loan “guarantees” (actually taxpayer loans from the Federal Financing Bank) and other taxpayer subsidies for new nuclear reactor construction must be ended immediately, and any existing funds available rescinded.
Proposals for new reactors in the U.S. should be financed solely by the utilities and other entities involved, not taxpayers or ratepayers. Construction-Work-in-Progress rules in effect in a small number of states should be rescinded as undemocratic and an inappropriate use of ratepayer money. Public opinion polls show nuclear subsidies are a more publicly popular program to cut than any other federal program. Other relevant subsidies that should be eliminated include taxpayer funding intended to speed the implementation of new nuclear power, uranium and plutonium fuel production, and for reprocessing of radioactive waste.
The Price-Anderson Act limits nuclear industry liability in the event of an accident that could cause tens to hundreds of billions of dollars in damage. Americans cannot purchase insurance to protect from radiation accidents. This is an unsupportable subsidy to the nuclear industry, creates a certainty among nuclear utilities that they will be protected regardless of their actions and design flaws of their reactors and shifts the burden of accident consequences to taxpayers.
Irradiated nuclear fuel pools should contain no more than the most recent five years of waste generated. Older waste should be put into hardened on-site storage that meets the “Principles of Safeguarding Nuclear Waste at Reactor Sites” endorsed by groups in 50 states. Reprocessing of radioactive waste—which creates plutonium-based MOX fuel exacerbating the situation at Fukushima—must be permanently banned.
Since the potential radiological releases from a densely packed fuel pool may exceed those from a nuclear reactor, it is time to enact the steps outlined in the “Principles of Safeguarding Nuclear Waste at Reactor Sites.” This document resulted from years of discussion, and is an agreed-upon position on high-level radioactive waste storage. Hardened on-site storage recognizes that a permanent waste facility is decades away, that radioactive waste will remain at reactor sites for the foreseeable future, and concrete steps must be taken to secure existing radioactive waste in dry storage that is spread out and protected with barriers.
No license extension of existing nuclear facilities
New license extensions of US reactors should stop. License renewals already granted should be rescinded. No reactor should operate more than 40 years.
No new licenses/permits/approvals should be granted for new uranium mines, fuel cycle facilities, reactors, reactor design certifications. There should be an immediate halt to licensing and construction of any new nuclear project, including the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility, “Generation IV” reactors, “small, modular reactors” and Thorium reactors.
We have better ways to boil water…and boiling water is a very inefficient way to make electric power if it results in the generation of waste that has global consequences, such as that from uranium and from coal.
Expand emergency evacuation zones to 50 miles for existing reactor sites
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recommended a 50-mile evacuation zone for U.S. citizens in Japan following the Fukushima disaster. In the United States, utilities should be prepared to evacuate at this distance. Currently, emergency planning zones are only 10 miles around reactor sites.
Safety review of station blackouts
Station blackout has long been an accident scenario of critical concern to nuclear experts. A new review of the ability of U.S. reactors to withstand a station blackout scenario of significant duration must be conducted and lessons learned implemented.
Update US radiation standards to reflect Post-Chernobyl understanding of radiological impacts in addition to current standards based solely on A-bomb survivors
Retire the radiation exposure risk model now used by the International Commission of Radiological Protection--which is the basis of and dominates all present radiation risk legislation--because it inadequately deals with exposures to internal radioisotopes and exposures to the most vulnerable: women, children, the fetus, and the elderly. Adopt the risk model proposed by the European Committee on Radiation Risk which more responsibly accounts for the risks and uncertainties of radiation exposure.
End all import of foreign radioactive waste, stop all incineration of radioactive waste, ensure that all radioactive materials remain regulated.
The United States has been asked to import, treat and dispose of foreign-origin radioactive waste. This must end. Incineration of radioactive waste spreads radiation into our air. This too must end. Materials contaminated with radiation must be treated as radioactive and must not be released into normal waste streams for disposal or recycling into commerce.
There are 23 nuclear reactors currently operating in the United States using the same General Electric Mark I design as those that have failed so catastrophically at Fukushima.
The flaws in this design are fundamental, cannot be fixed, and have been documented for 40 years now. They have led to containment building explosions at three of the Fukushima reactors, the exposure of irradiated fuel pools to the environment and enormous radiation releases.
It is time to close them, permanently. Please take a moment to tell that to President Obama, your Congressmembers, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). You can do that with one letter below.
A list of the GE Mark I reactors can be found here. You will also see that 18 of these 23 aging reactors already have been approved for license extension by the NRC. Rather than putting Americans into peril for 20 more years, the renewals must be rescinded and the reactors closed now.
An explanation of the fundamental flaws in the Mark I design is here. The explanation includes links to the original l971-72 Atomic Energy Commission discussion of the design's flaws and recommendation that the design be discontinued in the U.S. Astonishingly, this recommendation was agreed to in concept, but denied because it "could well mean the end of nuclear power..."
Please use the icons above to spread the word about this campaign via e-mail and social networking sites! Your help in outreach is crucial.
People outside U.S.: Because this campaign is partially aimed at U.S. Congressmembers, only U.S. addresses may be used. We ask you instead to use the letter below, edit as you wish, and e-mail it to President Obama from http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact.
Dear President Obama,
There are 23 operating and aging GE Mark I reactors in the United States. This is the same design that has failed so catastrophically at Fukushima.
Top safety officials at the Atomic Energy Commission and later the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have warned about the flaws of this reactor design for the past 40 years.
The flaws in this design are fundamental and cannot be fixed.
Americans should not live in peril due to flawed reactor designs. Taken together, all 23 of these reactors provide less than 4% of the nation's electricity. There is ample reserve capacity available.
These reactors must be permanently closed now. Please inform me of the actions you will take to ensure their permanent shutdown.
Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley has proposed legislation to encourage offshore wind development for Maryland. In return for very modest increases in electric rates now, Maryland would receive the benefits of clean energy, good jobs and affordable electricity for decades. You can read about the Governor's plan here.
But the Governor and Maryland politicians like Sen. Ben Cardin also recently met with Electricite de France, apparently to discuss ways to revive the foundering Calvert Cliffs-3 nuclear reactor. And now the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has turned its powerful lobbying force on Calvert Cliffs-3, calling out NIRS and our allies for "stalling" the project.
We didn't know that exercising our democratic rights to participate in major decisions that affect our lives was such a problem for the Chamber of Commerce. Nor did we realize the French government--which owns Calvert Cliffs-3--was more important to the Chamber than its U.S. members. Nor did we realize that the Chamber supported patently illegal projects like Calvert Cliffs-3....
Let's fight back now! Tell Maryland's legislature, Governor O'Malley and Senators Cardin and Mikulski: we want them to support offshore wind and stop Calvert Cliffs-3 once and for all.
As always, feel free to edit the sample letter. And please help spread the word through e-mail, Facebook, Twitter, etc. with the handy icons above.
The crisis at the Fukushima nuclear site in Japan continues, seemingly without end. The accident is now officially on the scale of Chernobyl. The "evacuation" zone has expanded, and in reality has become a permanent relocation zone. Radiation contamination has reached the food supply and seawater in the Pacific Ocean.
We are posting updates regularly on our website: www.nirs.org. Please check often for new information.
The lesson of this catastrophe is clear: we must end the use of nuclear power.
And that must start with the prevention of any new nuclear reactors.It is outrageous that the Obama Administration continues to say nuclear power will be part of its "clean energy" strategy and continues to seek $36 Billion MORE in taxpayer loans for new reactor construction. This funding must be stopped, and existing taxpayer subsidies for the nuclear industry withdrawn. How anyone can view the images coming from Japan and continue to claim nuclear power is somehow "clean" is beyond our ability to comprehend.
If ever there was a time for Congress to hear our voice, it is now.
We're asking you--and everyone you know--to act now. More than 40,000 letters have gone in over the past month, but we have never needed a larger public outpouring and more outreach than right now. Please use the handy icons above to post this page on Facebook, Twitter and other networking sites and e-mail it to your lists, your friends, your colleagues.
The Missouri legislature is currently considering legislation (SB 50/HB 124) that would force ratepayers to foot the bill for some costs related to the Callaway-2 nuclear reactor before it is built and operating. This violates the will of Missouri voters, who passed a ban on Construction Work In Progress (CWIP) charges by a nearly two-to-one margin.
And while this legislation is limited in scope, it's just the foot in the door. If Ameren receives a permit to build this reactor, you can bet they'll be back looking in ratepayers' wallets for the $10 Billion or more it would cost to actually build the thing.
Let's nip this in the bud. Send a letter to your legislators today. Our friends at Missourians for Safe Energy have written the sample letter below. Recent research has found that personalized e-mails--with your own thoughts--are more effective than form letters. So we encourage you to edit this letter however you like.
And please help spread the word: it's going to take all of us working together to defeat this proposal. Tell your friends, colleagues, dormmates, PTAs, church groups--every social circle you participate in. Use the icons above to share this on Facebook, Twitter, and other social networks. Together, we can stop nuclear subsidies and build a genuinely clean energy future.
Nuclear power is dangerous, dirty and extraordinarily expensive. That's why nuclear utilities can't find private money to build new reactors. So they want you to lend them the money for new reactor construction.
Unfortunately, President Obama wants you to lend them the money too. His FY 2012 budget proposes tripling the nuclear loan program, adding $36 Billion to the $18.5 Billion approved in 2007--$10.2 Billion of which is still unspent. He also wants to spend $500 million over the next five years to develop new "small modular reactors." But if those reactors were commercially viable, they would be developed on their own. The nuclear industry is wealthy--it could spend that money if it wanted to. After all, the industry has spent more than that ($650 million) just on lobbying and campaign contributions over the past decade.
President Obama made the same $36 Billion proposal for new reactor loans last year. And, thanks to public opposition, he didn't get one dime of it. Let's make sure the nuclear industry doesn't get one more penny this year. Send your letter to Congress below.
And please help spread the word: it's going to take all of us working together to defeat this proposal. Tell your friends, colleagues, dormmates, PTAs, church groups--every social circle you participate in. Use the icons above to share this on Facebook, Twitter, and other social networks. Together, we can stop nuclear subsidies and build a genuinely clean energy future.
We've provided a sample letter for you. Recent research has found that personalized e-mails--with your own thoughts, and relating the issues to your own state or region--are much more effective than form letters. So we encourage you to edit this letter however you like. Note: only those with U.S. addresses can participate in this action.
Finally, after you've sent your letter, we hope you'll consider making a small donation to help pay for this campaign. Thank you!
The Japanese government, through the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC), is considering making loans to NRG Energy (and its partners Toshiba and Tokyo Electric Power) to help rescue the troubled two-reactor South Texas Nuclear Project. The cost estimate for this project has risen from $5.6 Billion in 2006 to more than $18 Billion today. These polluting nuclear reactors would operate in the deregulated Texas market, where competition from natural gas, solar and wind power is fierce. Indeed, independent estimates indicate that electricity from the South Texas Nuclear Project would cost 3-4 times more than current electricity prices in Texas.
In short, this would be a bad deal for Texas and a bad deal for JBIC and Japanese taxpayers, who could lose billions of dollars. Tell the Japanese government: Don't Mess with Texas and don't support loans for nuclear power in other countries!
But there's more to it than that. This is the beginning of an international campaign. It isn't just Japan: export-import banks in France, the U.S. and elsewhere are also involved in spreading nuclear reactors and materials, radioactive waste, and radioactive contamination across the world. This isn't international cooperation; it's international devastation. And it has to stop. This is where we start. Please act now.
This action is a little different from most of our actions. To take part:
Organizations: We are seeking organizational sign-ons to a letter to the Prime Minister of Japan and his Cabinet. You can read the text of the letter here. If your organization can sign this letter, please e-mail your name, organization name, city, state (if applicable) and country to nirsnet@nirs.org.
Individuals: Below is a petition. Please read and sign and add your own comments if you wish. The petition will be presented to the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. Note: To ensure your privacy, only your name, state (if in U.S.), country, and any comments you wish to add will be presented--none of your address information will be included in the copies given to the government officials. Also please note, if you are writing from outside the U.S. or Canada, under "State" you should choose "other."
You can participate in this action no matter where in the world you live (and we hope you will participate!). Let's let Japan know the whole world is opposed to their funding nuclear projects in other countries!
Please help spread the word. Please use the icons above to post this action to your Facebook pages, Twitter feeds, and other networking sites!
In his State of the Union speech, President Obama equated nuclear power, coal and natural gas with "clean" energy. Unfortunately, this pronouncement will serve to encourage Congress to consider a "clean energy standard" that would encourage use of these dirty technologies at the expense of genuinely safe, clean and sustainable renewable energy sources.
In fact, if the toxic radiation emitted daily from every nuclear reactor and other commercial nuclear facilities were the color and texture of oil, or smelled like natural gas, or came out as black soot, no one would ever again confuse nuclear power with “clean.”
We must begin to educate ourselves, and Congress, about what really constitutes clean and dirty energy. As a start, we have prepared a new briefing paper: Nuclear Energy is Dirty Energy. You can download it for free here, and learn about the three fundamental misconceptions of those, like President Obama, who would describe nuclear power as "clean."
Please send a letter to your Senators and Representative below, and let them know that nuclear power is not clean. A "clean energy standard" that includes nuclear power would actually inhibit development of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies and make a mockery of the entire concept of clean energy.
The nuclear industry is spending millions of dollars to try to get its way this Congress. But our united voices can be more powerful than their money. Let's start raising our voices now.
As always, you are free to edit the sample letter to reflect your own concerns. Help us spread the word, share this page on Facebook, Twitter and other networking sites by using the icons on the upper right of this page.
We have learned that President Obama's State of the Union Address on Tuesday, January 25, may include a call for Congress to enact a "Clean Energy Standard" that would support new nuclear reactors and "clean" coal plants.
However, we're told a final decision has not been made by the White House and the issue is still the subject of debate within the Administration.
Your actions now can make a huge difference. Please send a message to President Obama below and tell him that we know nuclear power and coal will never be clean and have no place in a "Clean Energy Standard."
Then please ask your friends and colleagues to send in letters too. You can also easily share this page on Facebook, Twitter and other networking sites (just look for the logos on the upper right).
Every nuclear facility releases toxic radiation on a daily basis, creates lethal radioactive waste and presents constant threat of meltdown--how is that clean? And even if carbon from coal plants could be captured (which is by no means clear), coal still brings us poisonous mercury, toxic ash and mountain top removal.
The Obama Administration--and Congress--must understand that while carbon emissions must be slashed, replacing them with other pollutants is no answer. And, of course, if we're really serious about slashing carbon emissions, then we need to move more quickly to renewables anyway, which release two to six times less carbon per kilowatt of electricity than nuclear power.
To our international friends: Our President may listen to you as well, so we encourage you to send a letter too!
Note: You may edit the sample letter to reflect your own concerns and priorities if you'd like.
A Texas-Vermont Radioactive Waste Compact Commission proposed rule would let nuclear waste from around the country (and potentially the world!) go to Waste Control Specialists’ (WCS) Andrews County TX proposed dump site in West Texas, instead of limiting waste to the current Compact states of Texas and Vermont. Radioactive waste means increased financial, health, environmental and security risks.
The comment deadline is December 26, so please send your comment letter now, below. Since the waste could come from all across the country, comments can come from across the country (and world!).
The proposal is also being used to justify new nuclear power, which would make even MORE nuclear waste, by giving the illusion of a solution to the nuclear waste problem. Yet the WCS site only has a conditional license, and that document doesn't include enough storage capacity to handle even the waste generated from Texas and Vermont. WCS' goal is to get a new license and become a national dumping ground for radioactive waste, and this is a step in that plan.
To get an idea of what WCS is like and how it is trying to buy its way to a new license, check out this article about its owner, Swift Boat funder Harold Simmons, who has given more than $1 million to Texas Governor Rick Perry--nearly half of that this year.
Thank you for taking action! If you have any problems with this action page, please let us know at nirsnet@nirs.org.
UPDATE, 11:30 am, December 15, 2010 (see below for background information)
The Senate has still not taken up the House-passed Continuing Resolution. Instead, the Senate is expected to vote in the next couple of days on a different, omnibus funding bill that includes $8 Billion in new nuclear loan guarantees. That's $8 billion too much! There's still time to make your voice heard. Tell your Senators: no more taxpayer bailouts for nuclear reactors, no more nuclear loans. Take Action below.
BREAKING NEWS, 3:30 pm December 9, 2010
The House has passed a Continuing Resolution that includes $7 Billion in new taxpayer loans for nuclear reactor construction, but the Senate has not acted on this yet. So there is still time to write and call your Senators! Send them a message below; when you do their phone numbers will appear--we encourage you to call them as well.
Background information (from Dec. 7, 2010):
The Obama Administration is asking Congress, as one of its last acts during this lame duck session, to sneak in $9 Billion for taxpayer loans for new nuclear reactor construction as part of its upcoming "Continuing Resolution" to keep the government funded.
This is at least the fourth attempt this year to increase the money available for new reactor "loan guarantees" (actually, these would be loans from the government's Federal Financing Bank)--despite the fact that the Department of Energy has not been able to spend the money it currently has available for such loans--it still has $10.2 Billion in unspent money available.
This money would go to some of the world's largest corporations; companies like Electricite de France, Toshiba directly, Westinghouse (owned by Toshiba), General Electric, and so on. When will Congress learn that taxpayers don't want to subsidize giant corporations, especially when they want to build dirty and dangerous new nuclear reactors in our communities!
With your help, we beat back the first three attempts to increase funding for this program. This one will be the hardest to beat yet, since the Administration's request is wrapped up in a larger package. So we need the loudest outcry possible. Please send a letter to your Senators below.
If you're on Facebook, Twitter or other networking sites, please help us spread the word. Just click on the icons on the top right of this page to share this action with your friends. Suggested tag line: Tell Congress: No more taxpayer loans for giant nuclear corporations (or use a tag line of your own!). Or send your friends an e-mail with the link to this page: http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5502/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4923
If you have any problems doing this action, please try again in a short time, and let us know by sending an e-mail to nirsnet@nirs.org. Occasionally, especially when we first issue an Alert, the servers become overloaded and people can't get their letters through. The tech people have been working on the problem. But waiting a few minutes and trying again usually works.
And, after you've sent your letter, we hope you'll consider making a tax-deductible donation to NIRS during our Holiday fundraising drive. Your support makes our work possible.
Note to our many friends outside the U.S.: you will need a U.S. address to participate in this action. U.S. Congressmembers reject mail coming from addresses outside their states or districts.
If the toxic radiation released routinely from nuclear reactors and every other polluting factory along the nuclear fuel chain were the color and texture of oil, or smelled like natural gas, no one would ever again confuse nuclear power with clean energy.
But there is a growing danger that in the next Congress, President Obama will compromise and support including nuclear power (and coal!) in a new "Clean Energy Standard" that would set our energy policy in the wrong direction for decades.
Please tell President Obama that nuclear power is not clean energy, and there must be no compromise when it comes to protecting our health, safety and environment! Send your letter to the President below.
Here is some more background on this issue.
Politics and Policy
President Obama and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) both recently have said that nuclear power is one area where the Administration could compromise with Republicans in the next Congress.
For example, here's Obama after the November election, "There's been discussion about how we can restart our nuclear industry as a means of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and reducing greenhouse gases. Is that an area where we can move forward?"
Never mind for the moment that there is no relation between nuclear power and foreign oil; in practical terms, what might such compromise mean?
One idea being discussed in Washington is to change the concept of a Renewable Energy Standard to a "clean" energy standard. A renewable energy standard (or RES), which many states already have, would set a minimum goal of how much of our electricity should be provided from safe, clean renewable energy--wind, solar, geothermal, etc) by a certain date. The Senate Energy Committee last year passed a weak RES bill, and is likely to try again next Congress. A stronger RES (for example, 25% or more of US electricity from renewable sources by 2020) could go a long ways toward ushering in the kind of clean, safe and affordable energy future our nation and planet need.
A "clean" energy standard, however, would set a new low in the use of greenwashing language. Because a "clean" energy standard--the kind of compromise being discussed in Washington these days--would add dirty fuels, including nuclear power and "clean" coal, to a Renewable Energy Standard and thus make a mockery of the concept.
Not only would genuinely clean energy sources like solar and wind get pushed aside in favor of much larger and more expensive nuclear and coal plants, but the reality is, neither nuclear power nor coal are clean.
Nuclear Energy is Not Clean Energy
The reality is that toxic radiation is emitted at every step of the nuclear fuel chain, which begins with uranium mining, moves on to milling and processing of the uranium, then to enrichment, then to fuel fabrication--all before the uranium enters the nuclear reactor itself. There, of course, the uranium is fissioned, producing tons of lethal radioactive waste.
Even without an accident, and accidents do occur at every step of the fuel chain, radiation is released into our air and water on a routine basis. Accidents just make the problem worse.
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences set up a committee about 60 years ago to study the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR). The committee has released seven reports since its inception. Each report lowered the "safe" level of radiation exposure until the most recent report, in 2005, which finally concluded that there is no such thing as a "safe" level of radiation exposure. (You can find more background on this BEIR VII report, and on radiation generally, by clicking on the links).
The only reason claims can be made that nuclear power is "clean" is because you can't see, smell or taste its toxic pollution. But it's there, and nuclear power has no place in a genuinely clean energy future.
Nuclear power is not even clean when it comes to carbon emissions. While it emits less lower carbon than fossil fuels, the reality is that every fuel source that is mined will cause environmental damage and carbon releases. In the case of nuclear power, the most authoritative report we've found--which reviewed more than 100 studies on the issue--concludes that nuclear power is responsible for six times the carbon emissions per kilowatt of wind power and two to three times more than solar power.
Your letter will help make sure that President Obama understands that nuclear power is not clean energy, and that our nation and planet deserve a genuinely clean, safe and affordable energy policy. A nuclear-free carbon-free energy future is attainable, if we take the right steps now. Whether you're in the U.S., or any other country in the world, your action now will help. Send your letter to President Obama today.
And we hope you'll support NIRS in our holiday fundraising drive after you send your letter to President Obama, or just send a tax-deductible donation to NIRS, 6930 Carroll Avenue, #340, Takoma Park, MD 20912. Thank you so much!
It would also help if you could post the action page on Facebook, Twitter, and anywhere else you have an account--it's easy to do! Just click on the symbol above. Here's a suggested line to add: Tell President Obama: Nuclear Energy is NOT Clean Energy! Let's be sure President Obama gets the message from as many of us as possible and stop this "compromise" before it gets started.
As always, please feel free to edit the letter to reflect your own concerns.
In light of its decision to end the failed and scientifically-indefensible Yucca Mountain, Nevada radioactive waste dump, the Obama Administration has established the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (BRC) to re-evaluate radioactive waste policy. The BRC has been meeting and holding hearings for several months. Although the BRC's work is limited to the U.S., the ramifications of its eventual conclusions are likely to be felt around the world--and indeed BRC members already have been to Europe to review radioactive waste policies there.
Unfortunately, the BRC's members are dominated by nuclear power interests who so far appear more interested in finding ways to encourage generation of new radioactive waste than in developing a responsible radioactive waste policy.
Thus, it is critical that our voices be heard. The BRC asked the anti-nuclear/clean energy community a long set of questions. On Tuesday, November 16, our community will be providing answers to those questions at a BRC meeting in Washington DC.
The detailed (and long!) text of our answers, developed by a group of 30+ activists over many weeks, is available here in nearly finished form (addition of some footnotes and proofreading have yet to be completed).
But our position can be summarized by four clear principles:
*No reprocessing of radioactive waste
*Isolation from the biosphere for as long as it remains a hazard
*Hardening and improved monitoring of the waste where it is currently stored
*Stop Making Radioactive Waste!
Sign the petition in support of these four principles now! And suggest that your friends and colleagues sign the petition too. But please act by November 15--the petition will be presented to the Blue Ribbon Commission at the November 16 meeting. You can add your own comments in the box at the bottom of the petition.
We encourage you to share this petition by e-mailing your friends (please don't send to people you don't know!), and posting on Facebook, Twitter and other networking sites. Just use the Share button above!
It's official: Constellation Energy wanted out of the Calvert Cliffs-3 nuclear reactor project so bad that last night they agreed to sell their 50% share of it to Electricite de France (EDF) for $140 million, plus EDF will give back about $100 million in stock it owns in Constellation. Here is a Baltimore Sun story on the deal. Most other major newspapers have covered the deal too.
In other words, Constellation thinks the $240 million or so it's getting from EDF is worth more than 60 years of electricity sales from a $10+ billion nuclear power plant. That should tell you something about nuclear power's economic viability when ratepayers aren't forced to subsidize new reactors.
But it's not clear our public officials are getting the message.We can change that by acting now.
Some Maryland politicians--like House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer--and a lot of nuclear industry advocates, are hoping EDF can somehow resurrect Calvert Cliffs-3 and the entire nuclear "renaissance," which is crumbling before their eyes. They're even hoping EDF will still get, and accept, the $7.5 Billion loan the Department of Energy promised before Constellation backed out of the project!
But Electricite de France is exactly what its name sounds like: it's part of the French government. Why on earth should U.S. taxpayers provide a loan to the French government to build dangerous, dirty and extraordinarily expensive nuclear reactors in the U.S.? The answer, of course, is we shouldn't. Indeed, we shouldn't be giving taxpayer loans to any nuclear company!
If you agree, please send your letter now below. It will go to Energy Secretary Chu, loan guarantee program chief Jonathan Silver, and your members of Congress. Feel free to edit the sample letter to add your own concerns.
And please ask your friends and colleagues to take action too, and please forward this action to your organization's e-mail lists. Here is the link:http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5502/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4558
Note: If the system doesn't already recognize you, just enter your zip code in the box below, and the sample letter and list of recipients will appear. You can then edit the letter if you'd like. Also note: phone and often fax numbers for your elected officials are also provided. We encourage you to also take five minutes and call their offices with the same message: no taxpayer loans for French government nukes!
Constellation Energy's decision to end its involvement in the Calvert Cliffs-3 nuclear reactor project--which effectively means the end of Calvert Cliffs-3--is the best news to hit Maryland in a long time!
The demise of Calvert Cliffs-3 not only means lower electricity prices, less radioactive waste piling up on the shores of our Chesapeake Bay, less threat of nuclear meltdown or terrorist attack, but it also offers Maryland the real opportunity to become a national leader in development of safe, clean, affordable renewable and energy efficiency technologies.
Already there are plans to build large offshore wind farms off the entire mid-Atlantic coast, and yesterday Google announced it plans a massive investment to build offshore transmission lines to bring their power to land. Coincidence that Google waited until Calvert Cliffs-3 was cancelled to make that announcement? Perhaps, but it helps pave the way to a nuclear-free, carbon-free energy future.
Unfortunately, Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley hasn't gotten the message. Newspapers are reporting today that he has been meeting with officials from Electricite de France in a misguided effort to save Calvert Cliffs-3.
Tell Governor O'Malley to cut it out! Marylanders never wanted a new nuclear reactor on the Bay. O'Malley should be welcoming Calvert Cliffs-3's demise and working even harder to support clean, affordable energy sources rather than trying to prop up giant foreign companies who want to pollute our state with radiation and generate electricity no one can afford.
Enter your zip code in the box below to send your letter to Governor O'Malley. Please feel free to edit the sample letter to reflect your own concerns. And please forward this link to your e-mail lists, friends and colleagues, so they can send a letter to Governor O'Malley as well: http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5502/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4402
The election is over. And the nuclear industry is salivating over the prospect that the new Congress will give them your money to build their dangerous, dirty and extraordinarily expensive new nuclear reactors.
Here are just a few of the comments made yesterday:
An article from Bloomberg News that starts out, "Electricity producers such as NRG Energy Inc. and Southern Co. will benefit as Republicans who won control of the U.S. House yesterday promote nuclear power as part of clean-energy legislation."
Here is an article that says two of only five areas Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell sees for cooperation over the next two years are nuclear power and "clean" coal.
And President Obama said at his press conference yesterday, "There's been discussion about how we can restart our nuclear industry as a means of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and reducing greenhouse gases. Is that an area where we can move forward?"
But we've taken on bigger odds before and won. So let's get to work. Let's tell Congress: no nuke subsidies during the Lame Duck Session, and none next year either!
One thing Congress must get done during its lame duck session beginning November 15 is to continue funding the government. Their current plan is to pass a giant "omnibus" appropriations bill that will fund all government agencies for the rest of the fiscal year (through September 2011). Once agreement is reached on this kind of bill, it is almost impossible to stop because, after all, the government does need to be funded. And amendments to this kind of bill are rarely allowed.
This is exactly the kind of bill where nuclear power advocates will try to sneak in billions more of your dollars for new reactor construction. Thanks to your actions, they've failed at getting more money for new nukes all year long, so this will be their last, best shot.
And, in the wake of Constellation Energy's decision to end the Calvert Cliffs-3 nuclear project, the nuclear power industry will be trying to change the rules to force taxpayers to take ALL the financial (and safety!) risks of new reactor construction. We might even see an effort to change the Atomic Energy Act to allow foreign ownership of U.S. nuclear reactors in order to allow the French government to build reactors here. Don't let them get away with it!
Let your Senators and Representatives know we're watching them, and that they must not spend any tax dollars on new reactors during this lame duck session, nor change the rules to force us to take the extraordinary financial risks for their dangerous, dirty and unnecessary reactors. Enter your zip code below to send your letters. And, of course, please feel free to edit the sample letter to reflect your own concerns.
Then, place take a moment to share this action page on Facebook and any other networking site you use. It's easy to do with the Share app above.
Note: If you have any problems using this page, please let us know at nirsnet@nirs.org. Thank you!
In the best nuclear-related decision of his presidency, President Obama has acted to end further consideration of the failed and scientifically-indefensible Yucca Mountain, Nevada radioactive waste dump.
While Yucca Mountain is not entirely dead yet--Republicans in Congress, for example, have vowed to bring it back if they win control of Congress in November, the Department of Energy has established a Blue Ribbon Commission for America's Nuclear Future to re-examine U.S. radioactive waste policies.
Unfortunately, this Commission is stacked with nuclear power advocates who seem more interested in finding ways to encourage more nuclear power and more radioactive waste production than actually finding a solution to the radioactive waste problem.
We think the number one priority should be to stop making radioactive waste! And then begin implementing those scientifically sound measures we can take now to minimize the problem as much as possible.
Now you can tell the Commission yourself exactly what you think. Send your letter below. As usual, you can edit the sample letter to reflect your own concerns.
Yesterday, in Washington, DC, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology released an "expert" study titled "The Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle."
This study recommended that the government accelerate and increase the amount of taxpayer subsidies going to new nuclear reactor construction. The study says taxpayers should quickly fund 7-10 new reactors--at today's prices, that would be $50-100 billion!
But MIT didn't recognize that because, despite being an "expert" study, they used a cost estimate for new reactor construction that hasn't been valid for years.
So yesterday, we issued a press release, which we've pasted in below, that points out that MIT's cost estimate is simply not credible, how it is wrong, and why (and it might not surprise you to learn that MIT's study was funded by the nuclear industry).
Despite this blatant flaw in the study, the nuclear industry and Department of Energy will be using it to make a case in Congress for more government loans to wealthy nuclear companies. This could still come up this month, in the form of a Continuing Resolution, or in a lame-duck session after the election, in the form of an omnibus appropriations bill or some other legislation.
It's important that every member of Congress know the facts about nuclear subsidies--and this MIT study is not based on facts.
Please send a letter to your members of Congress expressing your opposition to more taxpayer subsidies for nuclear power; your letter will include a copy of the press release below! Note: unlike most of our actions, you will not be able to edit this letter since we want to be sure the press release goes in as written. Here it is:
INDUSTRY-FUNDED MIT STUDY ON NUCLEAR FUTURE SUFFERS FROM UNSUPPORTABLE REACTOR CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
RECOMMENDATION FOR MORE HIGH-RISK TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES TO NUCLEAR INDUSTRY DOESN’T HOLD UP UNDER SCRUTINY
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Michael Mariotte
September 16, 2010 301-270-6477
An MIT study titled “The Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle” released today in Washington uses an unsupportable reactor construction cost estimate, undercutting its recommendation that taxpayer subsidies for new nuclear reactors should be increased and accelerated.
“Congress would be ill-advised to follow the MIT recommendation,” said Michael Mariotte, executive director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), “since the study relies on a construction cost estimate for new reactors that is 50% or more below current cost estimates. Reliance on such an estimate would turn a high-risk taxpayer loan into an exorbitant-risk taxpayer bailout for wealthy nuclear power companies. Congress needs real numbers when it considers spending taxpayer money, not nuclear industry fantasies.”
The MIT recommendation, which calls for an acceleration and expansion of taxpayer subsidies for the first 7-10 new reactors, is based on an estimated construction cost of $4,000/kilowatt, or about $4 billion for a 1,000 Megawatt reactor.
“This is a remarkable flaw from what is touted as an expert study,” said Mariotte. “Even a cursory review of the literature finds that no new U.S. nuclear reactor proposal is coming in at $4,000/kw,” said Mariotte. “The real-world estimates are ranging from $6,000-9,000/kw--or 50% to more than 100% higher than MIT’s study asserts. Based on those kinds of estimates, it would make no sense for taxpayers to support the nuclear industry at all. New reactors won’t be economic, and the taxpayer loans would be far too risky.”
Mariotte cited several examples to refute MIT’s cost figures:
*Calvert Cliffs-3 is estimated to cost “about $10 billion” according to testimony from Constellation Energy CEO Mayo Shattuck before the Maryland Public Service Commission in March 2009. That’s more than $6,000/kw for that 1600 MW reactor.
*PPL estimates, on its website, that a reactor identical to Calvert Cliffs-3, would cost $13-15 billion, or about $8,000-9,000/kw (including financing costs). http://www.bellbend.com/faqs.htm
*A September 2008 estimate filed with the Florida Public Service Commission put the proposed Turkey Point reactors at $8,200/kw.
*The Southern Company’s Vogtle reactors in Georgia—slated to be the first recipients of taxpayer loans to support their construction—are currently estimated at about $6,200/kw.
Wall Street appears not to accept the MIT figures either:
*An October 2007 report from Moody’s Investor Service predicted costs of $5-6,000/kw. Less than a year later, in May 2008, Moody’s predicted costs “…potentially reaching over $7,000/kw.”
*Standard & Poor’s, quoting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in October 2008, predicted costs ranging from $5-8,000/kw.
“The MIT study correctly notes that ‘nuclear electricity costs are driven by high up-front capital costs,’ whereas natural gas and coal costs are more dependent on fuel costs,” said Mariotte, “thus, it vastly underestimates nuclear capital costs and presents a grossly misleading picture of the costs of electricity to the consumer if nuclear reactors are built, as well as understating the risk of nuclear loans to the taxpayer.”
Mariotte noted that the study only compared nuclear costs to natural gas and coal, and not to alternatives like wind power, solar power, geothermal and energy efficiency technologies. Some of these alternatives, like wind and energy efficiency, are already much cheaper than nuclear power and solar is rapidly declining in price while increasing in its efficiency. Earlier this week, the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory released a report detailing the potential of offshore wind resources for the U.S., finding that offshore wind alone could generate more than four times the entire current electrical demand in the U.S. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/45889.pdf
Mariotte pointed out that the MIT study acknowledges “generous financial support from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and from Idaho National Laboratory, the Nuclear Energy Institute, Areva, GEHitachi, Westinghouse, Energy Solutions, and Nuclear Assurance Corporation.”
“Areva, GEHitachi and Westinghouse are the three reactor vendors hoping for taxpayer money to pay for their products,” said Mariotte. “It is at least suspicious that the study would support their aims using a cost estimate that simply does not stand up to scrutiny.”
One thing you can say about the nuclear power industry: they just don't give up when it comes to trying to get their hands on taxpayer money!
Less than ten days ago, the Senate rejected a House-passed emergency supplemental funding bill that included $9 Billion in new loans for nuclear reactor construction. Now, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison R-Texas) is trying to attach that $9 Billion to any bill that might get through the Senate. She offered it to a bill to assist small businesses (never mind that no nuclear utility qualifies as a small business), but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to let this amendment (and dozens of others) take up valuable Senate floor time.
Now we have growing concern that Sen. Hutchison, or another nuclear proponent, may try to attach it to Senator Reid's modest energy bill, which is expected to be considered on the floor of the Senate next week and which currently contains no support for nuclear power. Please write your Senators below and tell them to oppose adding any nuclear subsidies to this energy bill--or any other bill.
But if you want more background, read on:
There are two projects on the Department of Energy's "short list" for nuclear loans: UniStar Nuclear's Calvert Cliffs-3 in Maryland and NRG's South Texas two-unit reactor proposal. Both are in serious trouble.
Earlier this week, one UniStar partner, Maryland's Constellation Energy, said it needs a loan guarantee by the end of summer or it might end the project; while the other partner, Electricite de France, yesterday took a $1 Billion+ write-off of its investment in UniStar. These developments come on top of growing concern over serious safety deficiencies in the Areva EPR reactor design chosen for the project.
NRG's South Texas project has been in trouble for many months. Its main partner, the City of San Antonio, essentially dropped out of the project. Its investment has been only partially replaced by a group that is primarily the Japanese company Toshiba. NRG also has warned it needs a loan guarantee quickly or it will give up.
The Department of Energy is under intense pressure to approve at least one of these projects. But which one? It--and the nuclear industry's backers in Congress, would prefer that both be approved. Right now, the Department of Energy has $10 Billion to give out in nuclear loans--not nearly enough to support both of these projects. But $9 Billion more of your taxpayer dollars would do the trick.
Why U.S. taxpayers should support giant foreign corporations (Electricite de France is the world's largest electric utility, for example), especially ones that already have written off their investments in these projects or will simply drop out if the taxpayers don't pick up their tab now, is beyond us. Neither project even has a license to build a new reactor, and neither will have one for at least two more years. Make no mistake: these nuclear loans are taxpayer bailouts for nuclear power projects that cannot and will not succeed on their own. Not because companies like Electricite de France and Toshiba can't afford to build nuclear reactors, but because they don't want to use their own money to do so. They want us to take their risks.
Please write your Senators below and tell them to oppose any more nuclear loans. And please send your friends, relatives and colleagues to this link so they can express their opinions too: http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5502/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=3831
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is expected to bring new energy legislation to the Senate floor the week of July 26, 2010.
While this bill is not expected to provide support for nuclear power, there has been far too much talk in recent months in the Senate about supporting the nuclear power industry with tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money. And whenever an energy bill reaches the Senate floor, there is a risk pro-nuclear members will try to add an amendment to hand over your money to the nuclear industry.
Please write your Senators now and urge them to oppose any nuclear amendments to Senator Reid's energy bill.
Senator Bernie Sanders' (I-VT) 10 million solar roofs bill (S. 3460) needs and deserves public support. It aims for the installation of 10 million new rooftop solar systems on U.S. homes over the next ten years (and 200,000 new solar hot water systems), through tax rebates and other measures, tripling the nation's solar capacity.
S. 3460 has passed the Senate Energy Committee. Your actions can help it move to the Senate floor and be passed by the full Senate.
Please send a letter to your Senators urging speedy enactment of S. 3460 below.
As always, you can edit the letter to reflect your own priorities. And please encourage your friends, relatives and colleagues to support this bill too. Send them to this page at this url: http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5502/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=3773
Resolution to Stop Shipment of Radioactive Nuclear Power Steam Generators on the Great Lakes & Dispersal into Consumer Goods
Canada's Bruce Power wants to ship 32 huge radioactive steam generators (16 are proposed to be shipped in the fall of 2010) through the Great Lakes and on to Sweden, where they will be processed by a company called Studsvik. The most highly radioactive pieces would then be shipped back through the Great Lakes to Canada, while Studsvik would "recycle" the less radioactive pieces into metals that could enter the consumer marketplace.
Below is a detailed resolution in opposition to this plan, which would endanger the Great Lakes and people across the entire world. We hope everyone will sign it.
The Obama Administration is attempting to get another $25 Billion in loans for new nuclear reactor construction.
A House Appropriations Subommittee has scheduled a meeting for Thursday, July 15 at 2 pm to consider the energy and water appropriations bill for next year's budget. The committee had tried to meet on June 24 but was forced to cancel the meeting after some members (we're looking especially at you Chet Edwards (D-Tex) and Chaka Fattah (D-Penn.)) complained that the bill did not include President Obama's request for $36 billion in new nuclear loans. Since then, the full House has approved $9 billion of that in the emergency supplemental funding bill (the Senate has not yet taken up that bill), so that leaves $25 billion the Administration wants.
And, unfortunately, that money is now in the bill that will be considered on Thursday. We need to stand up and insist that these loans for new reactor construction be removed!
Your actions can stop this unnecessary nuclear bailout: Tell your Representative that wealthy nuclear companies like Electricite de France, Areva, General Electric, NRG Energy and Toshiba don't need taxpayer bailouts! Fill in your zip code below to send your letter.
As always, you can edit your letter to reflect your own concerns. Thanks for taking action! Please help your friends, relatives and networks take action too by sending them to this page at this link: http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5502/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=3179.
Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) have now released their long-stalled "climate" bill. We put "climate" in quotes because addressing the climate crisis seems like an afterthought in this bill, which provides enormous taxpayer bailouts to the dirtiest energy companies in the world.
*$54 billion in new taxpayer loans for new nuclear reactor construction, plus tens of billions in new tax breaks for nuclear utilities.
*Speeding up the nuclear reactor licensing process, even though the independent Bipartisan Policy Center found the industry to blame for the pace of licensing.
*Billions for the oxymoron of "clean" coal.
*Despite the calamitous BP oil spill, continued support for offshore oil drilling.
*Removal of EPA authority to regulate carbon emissions.
*And carbon reduction goals so modest (just 17% reduction from 2005 levels by 2020) that we can exceed them without this dirty energy bailout.
Join 200+ organizations across the country that already have signed a statement opposing this bill and tell your Senators to oppose the Kerry-Lieberman "climate" bill (note, it does not have a bill number yet), and to work on finding real solutions to the climate crisis.
While hundreds of environmental groups oppose the bill in its present form, here are some of the bill's supporters: Nuclear Energy Institute, Exelon, Duke Power, Constellation Energy, Entergy. That should give you an idea of this measure's real priorities!
As always, we encourage you to edit the sample letter to reflect your own concerns.
The one bright spot in President Obama's nuclear power policy is his decision to permanently end the proposed Yucca Mountain, Nevada high-level radioactive waste dump.
Yucca Mountain was fundamentally flawed, riddled with earthquake faults, and proven unable to contain the radioactivity from the nation's high-level commercial nuclear waste--and 95% of the radioactivity ever created in the U.S. lies in that commercial waste.
But now some Congressmembers are attempting to revive the Yucca Mountain program, despite its massive failings. And they are seeking co-sponsors for their legislation, H.Res. 1209.
Please write to your Representative below: defend the decision to end Yucca Mountain and oppose co-sponsorship of this resolution.
As always, feel free to edit the sample letter to reflect your own concerns.
And please ask your friends, colleagues, congregations, dormmates, and anyone who may be interested to take action too. Send them to this link: http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5502/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=2513
Published reports indicate that Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) will unveil their new climate bill in the next week or two. And these published reports also indicate that the bill will be larded with taxpayer giveaways to the nuclear power industry. In other words, taxpayers would be subsidizing giant companies like General Electric, Progress Energy, Electricite de France, Exelon, Duke Power, Areva, Westinghouse and more.
Wasting taxpayer money on nuclear power--which is both ineffective at reducing carbon emissions (its carbon footprint is 6 times greater than wind power for the same amount of electricity, 2-3 times greater than solar) and remains the most dangerous and expensive electricity source available--is no way to fight climate change. In fact, it would be counterproductive.
Let's stop the climate bill from becoming just another taxpayer gift to huge energy companies! Send a letter to your Senators below and tell them to reject nuclear power in a climate bill, and instead to come up with real climate solutions.
As always, feel free to edit this letter to reflect your own concerns and issues. And please ask your family members, friends and colleagues to send letters too. Just send them to this address: http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5502/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=2255
The nuclear industry has spent more than $650 million over the past decade to get to this point. It's going to take all of us, working and acting together and reaching out to as many people as possible, to counter that kind of influence.
Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman is circulating a "Dear Colleague" letter to other Senators, seeking their support for his Clean Energy Development Administration (CEDA) concept. At first, the idea sounds great: who could oppose a bank to support clean energy projects? And, at this writing too many Senators seem willing to sign on without looking at the details.
And here are the details: Sen. Bingaman's CEDA would allow UNLIMITED taxpayer loan guarantees for construction of new nuclear reactors and "clean coal" projects. A nine-member unelected board of directors would determine which projects CEDA would fund--with no Congressional or public oversight. Unlike some other clean energy bank proposals, there would be no limit on how much money any single technology could receive, and no requirement that those technologies that offer the fastest, most cost-effective carbon reductions get funded first.
Indeed, the real intent of Sen. Bingaman's CEDA is to provide massive new taxpayer funding for nuclear power and coal--not genuinely clean, safe and cost-effective renewables and energy efficiency projects. CEDA is simply anothertaxpayer bailout for giant dirty energy interests. It must be stopped.
Please ask your Senator now to oppose CEDA, and certainly not to sign on to Sen. Bingaman's "Dear Colleague" letter.
And please ask your friends and colleagues to do so too. As always, you are free to edit the letter below to reflect your own concerns.
