OntheWilderSide

Here at Co-op America, we’re working hard to heal the climate by transitioning our electricity mix away from its heavy emphasis on coal-fired power.  In 2007, you helped us stop fifteen new coal plants, tell the financiers of major coal projects to stop funding coal, and persuade mutual funds to support shareholder efforts to mitigate climate change.

But all of that good work will be wasted if we transition from coal into an equally dangerous source – nuclear power, which is why we’ve put together this list of reasons why nuclear power is not a climate solution.

Solar power, wind power, geothermal power, hybrid and electric cars, and aggressive energy efficiency are climate solutions that are safer, cheaper, faster, more secure, and less wasteful than nuclear power.  Our country needs a massive influx of investment in these solutions if we are to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.

Thankfully, no new nuclear plants have been built in the US for over 30 years.  That means that a whole new generation of concerned citizens grew up without knowing the facts about nuclear power – or remembering the terrible disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.  So it is time to remind everyone that nuclear is not the answer.  Please help us get the word out.

Currently we draw electric power from about 400 nuclear plants worldwide.  Nuclear proponents say we would have to scale up to around 17,000 nuclear plants to offset enough fossil fuels to begin making a dent in climate change.  This isn’t possible – neither are 2,500 or 3,000 more nuclear plants that many people frightened about climate change suggest.  Here’s why:

1. Nuclear waste — The waste from nuclear power plants will be toxic for humans for more than 100,000 years.  It’s untenable now to secure and store all of the waste from the plants that exist.  To scale up to 2,500 or 3,000, let alone 17,000 plants is unthinkable.Nuclear proponents hope that the next generation of nuclear plants will generate much less waste, but this technology is not yet fully developed or proven.  Even if new technology eventually can successful reduce the waste involved, the waste that remains will still be toxic for 100,000 years.  There will be less per plant, perhaps, but likely more overall, should nuclear power scale up to 2,500, 3,000 or 17,000 plants.  No community should have to accept nuclear waste site, or even accept the risks of nuclear waste being transported through on route to its final destination.  The waste problem alone should take nuclear power off the table.

The Bush administration’s solution – a national nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain – is overbudget and won’t provide a safe solution either.  The people of Nevada don’t want that nuclear waste facility there.  Also, we would need to transfer the waste to this facility from plants around the country and drive it there – which puts communities across the country at risk.

Read the other 9 reasons.

Filed under: Action Alert!, activism, Global Warming, sustainability, sustainable