Environmental Defense Nuclear Power position statement

A few minutes ago, the Environmental Defense Fund emailed GNB a nuclear power position statement, which in essence contradicts stated position of its founder Fred Krupp...

For more information please contact:

Jeffery Greenblatt, Ph.D.
Office of Science and Policy
Environmental Defense
5655 College Ave., Suite 304
Oakland, CA 94618
(510) 457-2210
JGreenblatt@environmentaldefense.org

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE POSITION STATEMENT

Weighing the option of nuclear power to reduce U.S. global warming pollution

Summary: Serious questions of safety, security, waste and proliferation surround the issue of nuclear power. Until these questions are resolved satisfactorily, Environmental Defense cannot support an expansion of nuclear generating capacity. We need a rigorous federal research program to address these questions, so that our nation will have the information needed to make sound decisions in the future. The problem of global warming is so serious that we must thoroughly consider every low-carbon option for generating power.

Given the seriousness of global warming, some argue that the United States should increase the number of nuclear power plants and are even calling for federal subsidies to do so. It is true that nuclear plants generate electricity with minimal emissions of carbon dioxide or other heat-trapping gases. But nuclear is not the only technology available to slow global warming, and important issues about nuclear power remain unresolved. Increasing the number of plants would only magnify these issues. As the demand for electricity increases, merely to maintain today’s 20% market share of nuclear power would mean operating about 220 major nuclear plants by 2050, double what we have today.

Safety: Compared to fossil fuels, the safety record for nuclear power in the United States has been good. There have been no fatalities from a nuclear accident in more than 30 years of operation, while the air pollution from coal-fired power plants has caused hundreds of thousands of premature deaths. But if we increase the number of nuclear plants, the probability of a serious accident increases. So, before the nation commits to expanding nuclear power, the government must tighten the existing safety guidelines to protect the public and the environment.

Security: The security of nuclear reactors and nuclear waste is less certain. Although the Department of Energy says the current generation of reactors can withstand a terrorist air strike, a recent National Academy of Sciences report concluded that further work is needed to secure the reactors’ cooling pools. A Congressional agency investigation found that several nuclear facilities were unable to locate all of their spent fuel, a problem that was traced to inadequate federal oversight.

Waste: The National Academy of Sciences has endorsed a plan for the disposal of high-level nuclear waste in appropriate geologic sites. But Yucca Mountain, the first site designated by the government, will not become operational before 2010. Lingering questions about the site’s suitability suggest that the 2010 target is optimistic, and we cannot be sure that Yucca Mountain will ever become operational. A large expansion in U.S. nuclear generating capacity would increase the amount of waste and render current disposal plans inadequate. It would be foolhardy to build additional nuclear plants before there is a technically sound plan for storage, treatment and disposal of the nuclear waste.

Proliferation: Nuclear power is an international as well as a national issue. The United States can best ensure that nuclear power is deployed safely—and is not used for the production of weapons of mass destruction—by remaining engaged in the international community and leading by example. Just as we exercise restraint in expanding our nuclear generating capacity, we should encourage other nations to act responsibly as well. The United States should not support construction of new nuclear power plants in any country where these issues have not been adequately addressed.

Each of these issues merits a full investigation. The problem of global warming is so serious that every low-carbon option for generating power must be thoroughly considered. We need a rigorous federal research program to address the unresolved questions. Then, and only then, will we know enough to determine whether using nuclear power to reduce global warming pollution is desirable and economically feasible.

Pro-Nuclear Greens to meet at Bryant Park

Photo: Chief ED scientist Dr. Bill Chameides

It has come to the attention of Green Nuclear Butterfly that pro-nuke greens in Manhattan are going to be speaking at Bryant Park.

Word for Word Author Series: Focus on the Environment Wednesday, Aug 8th. 12:30 p.m. - 1:45 p.m.

Bryant Park Reading Room 42nd Street side of the park - under the trees - between the back of the NYPL & 6th Avenue. Look for the burgundy and white umbrellas. Rain Venue: Barnes & Noble Booksellers at 555 Fifth Avenue & 46th Street.

Talking with the director of the event, GNB was told that: "We'd rather that the nuclear issue not be discussed, but that the event is open to the public, anyone can attend to make their feelings known."

The panel will be hosted by Dr. Bill Chameides, Chief Scientist at Environmental Defense, an organization which turned pro-nuke. Its founder Fred Krupp introduced Paul Newman to Entergy which gave the actor a grand tour of Indian Point, in exchange for a glowing review on its security, favoring its relicencing.

After numerous calls to Environmental Defense, inquiring as to a position paper on the nuclear issue, not a single call was returned... in other words, endorsement by omission. (update: a nuclear power position statement was emailed to GNB a few minutes after this post went up... which now sits above. EDF's official position is that it does not support a nuclear relapse unless or until certain preconditions are met by the nuclear industry. It makes no mention of old plant relicensing.)

On the panel will be Lazy Environmentalist Josh Dorfman, born and raised in Weschester county, who has expressed to this writer his support for the relicensing of Indian Point.

Also on the panel will be Ben Jervey, author of the Green Apple Guide, who after numerous attempts to have Rock The Reactors or Green Nuclear Butterfly, or so much as the Indian Point issue mentioned in his newsletter, has refused to bring it up with his readers.

I don't know how the last two panelists, Eugene Linden (The Winds of Change) and Andrew S. Winston (Green to Gold) feel about the nuclear issue, but I wouldn't be surprised if they too, were supporters of IP relicensing.

It saddens me that after so many years in the environmental movement, I would find myself pitted against those who in fact should be allies in this fight... yet these people and organizations, do not even have the courage of their opinion, express their support for the relicensing of Indian Point by their abject silence.

It's cowardly, trying to render the nuclear issue into a non-green issue, a sell-out to the Bush administration. None of their Green works will amount to anything if there's an accident at the plant, let alone the long term health consequences of radioactive isotopes right now leaking into the water table.

The fact that these young greens are too wet behind the ears to understand the immensity of their ommission, ignoring the elephant in the room, destroys me emotionally, I don't know how to deal with such lack of connection to our earth they claim to care so much about. Would it be possible that the only green they see, is the color of money?

For more information on the event, contact the organizers directly:
Bryant Park Corporation
500 Fifth Avenue Suite 1120
New York, NY 10110
212-768-4242